The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit, first to Hong Kong, on 9th and 10th October, and then to Australia, from 11th October to 18th October inclusive, when the House will sit. In Hong Kong, I will be meeting the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Justice. In Australia, I will be holding meetings with the Prime Minister and other Ministers and giving the inaugural Magna Carta lecture in the Parliament building. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Gulf War Veterans: Pensions

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as honorary Parliamentary advisor over many years to the Royal British Legion and as a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.
	The Question was as follows:
	What course of action they propose to take following the Pensions Appeal Tribunal's judgment in the case of Gulf War veteran Shaun Rusling.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have carefully studied the reasons given by the president of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for refusing leave to appeal to the High Court in the case of war pensioner Mr Shaun Rusling. The Ministry of Defence still believes that there is an error on a point of law in the tribunal decision dated 20th May 2002, and has therefore decided to exercise its right to apply direct to the High Court for leave to appeal.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is she aware that the reaction of Gulf veterans to the Government's double defeat over Shaun Rusling's pension and indeed—I quote from the tribunal's judgment—failure even,
	"to make a reasonably arguable case",
	is that, if less time and money had been spent on contesting pension entitlements, more could have been done to help those left bereaved or in broken health by the conflict?
	How many veterans secured their current pension entitlement only on appeal? How many others could be affected if the Shaun Rusling judgment stands? Finally, does not this landmark case demonstrate again that—at least until the Porton Down inquiry reports late next year—we could be involved in a second Gulf War without fully having learned all the lessons of the first?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I recognise the great efforts that my noble friend has mounted on behalf of Gulf War veterans. As he will know, more than 4,600 Gulf veterans have been awarded a pension. Since 1991, there have been almost 900 appeals from Gulf veterans, about one-quarter of which have been successful. Only 270 of the 900 appeals were in respect of claims for Gulf-related illness; the remainder were in respect of claims for conditions that occurred during Gulf veterans' service career elsewhere than in the Gulf or for conditions not particular to the Gulf. About one-quarter of the 270 Gulf-related appeals were successful. I should also point out that many of the cases already had a war pension in payment and that the appeal in fact increased the level of the award.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, due to increasing evidence in relation to the nerve agent protection system which is now available, there is need for a swift public inquiry? Should not this inquiry be conducted before this form of protection is given to our troops who may take part in further action?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there has been a continuing study into the interactive effects of the combination of vaccines and the nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets that were given out during the conflict. That work is being done at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, and work is also being done at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, where the effect of the specific combination of anthrax and pertussis vaccines is being examined. The work at Porton Down is very complex, and the need for initial dose range work, the establishment of sophisticated monitoring techniques and so on means that that work cannot be completed quickly. We also cannot hurry the assessments of the results. We hope, however, to have the final completed report by the end of 2003.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in view of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Redesdale, and in view of what might be happening in the Gulf in the next nine months, does the Minister feel that it is safe to wait until the end of 2003 for that report? Although I recognise that these things take time, and we have all seen that it took about 10 years to get as far on the matter as we did, is it really impossible to hurry things up a bit? It seems to me a very dangerous situation.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the principle on which the Government have always proceeded on this matter is that any research must be peer reviewed so that it is credible and robust. For this study to be peer reviewed, we shall have to await its completion. We will of course produce interim reports and small pieces of research which are available before the end of 2003 in the form of posters for conferences and in other ways. However, the completed study will have to be peer reviewed if we are to ensure its credibility and robustness.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, raised the issue of lessons learned. She is absolutely right that we will have to learn from the problems of the past, and I believe that we have learned some lessons. There have, for example, been great improvements in medical record keeping so that medical service personnel on the ground regularly record health events and inoculations. We are also keeping up to date with service standard vaccinations, which was a concern during the conflict.
	Finally, there was again a routine lack of medical intelligence, during the conflict, of relevance to operational deployment. That problem will not arise in future because the Permanent Joint Headquarters now commissions up-to-date medical intelligence briefings for those areas of the world in which it is judged that UK forces are likely to operate.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—

Lord Winston: My Lords, as a scientist who is regularly involved in the peer review of many articles and research publications, I know that it takes on average two or three weeks for the peer review of a paper in Nature. Why would it take so long for the peer review of this one topic for the Government?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester; that is, that when the study is completed—the particular study with which we are concerned, the interaction study, is not yet complete—and it goes to peer review, we will be very happy to publish the results.

Tobacco and Alcohol Imports

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance they give to (a) customs officers and (b) the general public regarding the quantities of tobacco products and alcoholic drinks that may freely be brought into the United Kingdom from other European Union countries.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the guidance that Her Majesty's Government give to customs officers and the general public is the same. As long as it is for their own use, travellers can bring into the UK as much EU duty paid alcohol and tobacco as they wish.
	If travellers bring back large quantities of excise goods, they may be asked to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the goods are all for their own use. I stress that Customs is legally entitled to stop, question and, if necessary, search travellers as part of its duty to protect society from smugglers.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, given the obvious difficulty of drawing a distinction between amounts for personal use and amounts that are suitable for running a business, is not the present situation grotesquely unfair? It is unfair to Customs and Excise officers, who have a difficult job to do; it is unfair to retailers, who are losing much business; it is unfair to those people who cannot afford to travel and take advantage of cheap offers; and it is unfair to taxpayers, because of the millions—if not billions—of pounds that the Treasury is losing through that trade. Above all, does my noble friend agree that the process of allowing people to bring in tobacco so cheaply undermines the Government's policy of reducing tobacco smoking?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recognise all of the difficulties that my noble friend pointed out. There are indeed grave difficulties for legitimate business in this country if there is a great deal of smuggling. There are difficulties for those who obey the law—and they, after all, are the people we must, above all, seek to protect. However, we have a problem: our excise duties on tobacco and alcohol are very different from those in other European countries.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, following the recent High Court judgment, there still seems to be some confusion, despite the Minister's Answer, on this point. If it is true that individuals can bring back as much as they wish for their personal use, does that mean that the previous limits set by Customs and Excise or indicated by it no longer apply? More specifically, could the Minister clarify whether the onus of proof about whether something is for personal use is on the individual or Customs and Excise?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is referring to the Hoverspeed judgment. Customs and Excise has appealed against that judgment. There are some matters outstanding on which it would not be possible for me to comment. However, although the Hoverspeed judgment questioned whether Customs was acting properly in terms of whether there was a reasonable suspicion to search anyone or to confiscate goods, it confirmed that it is illegal to bring back goods other than for personal use. It confirmed that it was acceptable for Customs to impose what is called an evidential burden on travellers that they should show. It confirmed that commercial imports—in other words, imports for sale or reimbursement—can be seized. Above all, it confirmed that there has been no breach by Customs and Excise of human rights.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it really right that the car should be impounded by Customs before a court has decided whether the goods have been brought in for personal use, not just on the ipse dixit of the Customs officer?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Section 141 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 specifically provides for the impounding of the vehicle in which illegally imported goods are carried. Of course, it is open, within a month of the seizure, for the traveller to appeal. If the traveller challenges the judgment of the Customs officer, customs has to go before a magistrates' court to seek authority for that seizure. If it does not get it, the vehicle goes back.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I know about that but I asked the noble Lord—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am sure the House will have much sympathy with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. However, will the Minister accept that it is absolutely impossible for Customs and Excise to deal with the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred while excise duty differentials are so great? Therefore, the only two options available to government are either to accept that nothing can be done about the issue or to begin to look at a long-term strategy which might lead to lesser differentials on excise duties between this country and the rest of the EU.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether from his party's Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is advocating tax harmonisation. When we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did specifically advocate tax harmonisation. That may be the view of his party, in which case I am most interested to learn that. It is simply not true that nothing can be done. When we introduced the most recent Customs rules, in the first full year—that is, 2000–01—we cut cross-Channel smuggling by 76 per cent. Efforts are continuing to reduce the amount of smuggling.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is it not unreasonable to expect a Customs officer to make a quick judgment on the spur of the moment of the capacity, the appetite and, even more difficult, the length of life of a consumer or traveller?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indications are available to Customs officers—sometimes from intelligence and sometimes from the appearance of the people who pass before them. The Hoverspeed judgment made it clear that there must be reasonable grounds for stopping and searching a person and for asking questions. That issue is still before the courts. I received a most pathetic letter from a gentleman who complained about his vehicle being seized. When I inquired, I discovered that, on the occasion it was seized, he had with him 20,000 cigarettes and 17 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco. I also discovered that he was making that journey every two weeks.

NHS: Doctors from Overseas

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are encouraging doctors and surgeons from abroad to practise in the United Kingdom.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as part of our implementation of the NHS Plan, Her Majesty's Government are encouraging doctors to come to practise in the United Kingdom to increase the number of healthcare professionals working in the National Health Service.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. What are now the necessary qualifications in medicine, surgery and knowledge of the English language? Has the Minister seen the report—and is it correct—that recently arrived French and German medical teams have returned to their countries owing to misunderstandings, although their contributions and expertise were needed in this country?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in order to practise in the UK, a doctor needs to be placed on the medical register by the GMC. With regard to a person with a primary medical qualification from outside the European economic area, the GMC is required by law to satisfy itself that that person has the necessary knowledge of English. EC law prevents the application of such a requirement to people qualifying in the EEA. But there is a responsibility on NHS employers to ensure that any person whom they appoint knows sufficient English to do the job properly.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is really the "sticking-plaster" policy for the NHS? Does he believe that scouring the world for doctors, who may be badly needed in their own countries or, if they are not, will cost us disproportionately, is the way to go? Would it not be better to invest in staff here, retaining the nurses who are leaving at the moment so that operating theatres can be kept open, investing in education and training, and tackling the overload on all staff, so that the NHS is better placed to keep their services?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that seems to me to be an extraordinarily negative analysis of what we are doing in the NHS. There is a gap to be filled over the next few years because disastrous decisions were made by the previous government in relation to training places for doctors and nurses. We have taken decisive action to increase dramatically the number of such training places and have put in place recruitment and retention strategies. Those are beginning to pay off. However, in the meantime, it is surely right actively to recruit doctors and nurses from countries which have a surplus of such professionals to come to help the National Health Service.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are concerned that, under the EU directive concerning the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a doctor could practise here for 16 weeks per year before being required to register with the General Medical Council, which is the point at which a previous problem with a doctor may come to light?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the draft directive proposed by the European Commission. The Government have concerns on a number of aspects of that directive. We are making representations in Europe and, of course, shall seek to ensure that, at all costs, patient safety is paramount.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if South African doctors who practise in this country want to have further training to become surgeons, do they experience problems and how long does it take them?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we certainly want to ensure that doctors who already practise here are eligible for help towards more specialist training. However, so far as concerns South African doctors in general, we have an ethical code. We do not actively recruit for the National Health Service nurses or other medical professionals from countries which need them for their own health services. However, of course some South African doctors practise in this country, as do doctors from other countries. Overall, through various schemes we are seeking both to recruit doctors to this country and to increase the number of medical and specialist training places in order to meet the targets set out in the NHS Plan. But we shall take a flexible approach in considering where improvements need to be made and in picking up the type of issue raised by the noble Baroness.

Lord Winston: My Lords, what numbers of junior doctors are required in the Government's estimate, given the shortening of working hours in line with European practices?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have a specific figure relating to the increase in the number of junior doctors as a result of the Working Time Directive. However, we are expanding the number of medical school places by 1,000 on top of the 1,100 already announced. We also stated in the NHS Plan that by 2004 we shall have 1,000 more specialist registrars. With those increases and with the efforts made by individual NHS trusts to change and reform working practices, we are confident that we can meet the demands and pressures being placed upon us by the Working Time Directive. However, it will of course take a considerable number of years to implement the changes fully.

Earl Howe: My Lords, how many doctors have been recruited from abroad since the publication of the NHS Plan?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have established a number of schemes in relation to recruiting doctors. The global recruitment campaign that we launched in August 2001 has resulted in more than 5,000 expressions of interest. Following that, 1,977 firm applications were received, and 705 have been sifted and considered suitable for employment in the NHS. We are now in a matching operation between those considered suitable for employment and individual NHS trusts. Various other schemes have come into operation. A series of French GPs have started work in south London and by the end of March next year we expect their number to reach 23. So far as concerns the international fellowship scheme, 26 offers of appointment have been accepted and we expect the majority to be in post by the end of the year. We also have evidence of four clinical teams who have started work in the NHS.

Renewable Energy

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they made at the Johannesburg Earth Summit on clean energy; and with what effect.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the summit made a commitment to develop and to disseminate alternative energy technologies with the aim of giving a greater share of the energy mix to renewable energies, improving energy efficiency and placing greater reliance on advanced energy technologies, including cleaner fossil fuel technologies. The Government supported the European Union proposal that renewables should contribute 15 per cent of total global energy use by 2010. Unfortunately that was not accepted by countries opposed to a target.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, while noting with satisfaction the positive role played by the United Kingdom and other EU members, does the Minister agree, as he implied in his Answer, that it was a little disappointing that the outcome of the summit on the subject of clean energy did not go further, and that after hours of fruitless negotiation there was a failure to agree targets for renewable energy, although many of the countries present have had such targets for a long time?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly it was disappointing that we were not able to agree a target. We wanted one, but there was opposition from the United States and the G7 countries. The US accepted the targets on water and sanitation but not on renewables. We were disappointed. Targets are of great value in making firm commitments, but we were not able to achieve one.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Government have expressed their support for the policy of contraction and convergence, as set out by the Global Commons Institute, as an equitable, scientifically-based energy policy? Did our representatives at Johannesburg speak in favour of contraction and convergence? Are the Government committed to try to enlist the support of other governments for that policy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we want the developing and the developed countries to take the targets seriously, out of which a convergence would be achieved, but such a move has to take place on both sides.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, while sympathising with Her Majesty's Government in their failure to achieve their policy objectives at Johannesburg in this area, can the Minister indicate what further steps the Government have in mind to achieve the policy of targets for clean energy, rather than the aims and objectives that we have now?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord poses two questions. We shall seek to implement the agreements reached. While targets were not involved, there was agreement on what we should try to achieve, which was why, at Johannesburg, we initiated the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership. We shall take that forward in the months and years ahead. As part of REEP—the renewable energy and efficiency partnership—from 2003 we shall make available export credit guarantees. The department will provide £50 million worth of agreed credits for exports in the energy area. We also have our own targets for clean energy in this country.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that biofuels have an important role to play in meeting the Government's target in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, I believe that biofuels have a role to play, although I also believe that any achievement on the targets we are considering will rely on a range of fuels that are coming forward in different areas. For that reason we shall have an R&D programme that seeks to provide clean energy over a whole range. We cannot rely on one energy source to provide that.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that any clean energy targets will not include covering the hills and dales of England and Wales with unsightly wind farms that require a continuous back-up of fossil fuel energy, as wind is not a reliable generator of electricity?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly wind turbines have a considerable part to play in the production of clean energy. In the nature of the debate, everyone is in favour of particular sources of energy so long as they are not in their back garden. Unfortunately, compromises will have to be made if clean energy targets are to be achieved. It cannot be done on a costless basis.

Lord Rea: My Lords, what progress has been made in funding research for wave energy, which is a promising form of clean energy? Twenty years ago research funding for such energy was seriously cut by the previous government. Is the Minister aware of the findings of the Science and Technology Committee in another place that that was an extremely promising area, funding for which should be increased?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are rapidly increasing the amount of money spent on renewables. Spending will increase from £11 million in 1997–98 to £109 million in 2003–04 and £170 million in 2004–05. Recently, the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a review of the UK's public energy research from the Chief Scientist. He reviewed the R&D that was being carried out and produced a report which fed into the PIU review of energy policy. In that report he identified wave energy as being promising; it is an area we shall support with extra money for R&D.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the recent Labour Party conference in Blackpool some effective lobbying was carried out on renewables and on helping us to meet our environmental objectives? The general feeling was that the Government are undertaking the right actions, but that a push is required to make people aware of the benefits, for example, of hybrid cars that are petrol and electricity driven, or the benefits of solar panels. Can the Government provide that push, given that their policies are moving in the right direction?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We have demanding targets for renewable energy. Reaching them will be challenging and how we do so will be set out in greater detail in the White Paper due to be published around the turn of the year. Undoubtedly, we shall have to put a great deal more effort into achieving the renewable energy targets.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I shall offer a brief explanation of why we are proposing a slight change to the normal order of consideration of the Bill. As the House knows, the Government are tackling a complex and changing problem in terms of immigration and asylum. Over the summer events have taken place, requiring further action. We have identified further actions that we believe are necessary.
	I apologise to the House for making these changes at this relatively late date, but we believe that it is important to use the Bill to take all necessary steps to address the challenge.
	In practice the Motion moves Part 3 and Part 5 to later in the order of consideration, to give adequate time for the House to consider the amendments. I expect the final amendments to be tabled in the next day or so. This morning I wrote to all Peers seeking to set out a fuller explanation as to why we are doing this.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 39, Clauses 55 to 71 Clauses 106 to 112, Schedule 8, Clauses 113 to 140, Clauses 40 to 51, Schedule 3, Clauses 52 to 54, Clause 72, Schedule 4, Clauses 73 to 91, Schedule 5, Clauses 92 to 103, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 104 and 105, Clauses 141 to 144, Schedule 9, Clauses 145 to 147.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The proposals in the Bill are of great interest to this House, to the other place and to the country at large. The Government ask us to approve what is called a "slight" change in the order by which the clauses will be considered. I believe it is more than "slight".
	The first I heard of the matter was in an e-mail on Friday, just after the Government had cancelled my scheduled meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in connection with the Bill. My colleagues on the Back Benches will not have had notice until today when they picked up the Order Paper. That is simply not good enough.
	The Government have had a Recess of more than two months to get their act together and they have failed. The Government say in the note that was kindly circulated to Front-Benchers on Friday that,
	"The aim is to give the House a little longer to consider some of the significant issues contained in Parts III and V",
	to which the Minister has referred. Does that mean that the Government have agreed to extend Report stage beyond the three allotted days? If not, all the Government are saying today is that we can debate Parts 3 and 5 at a different time from that expected; in other words the third day, perhaps during the afternoon and evening rather than the early hours of the morning, pushing everything else on to Wednesday and Thursday. That will still leave parts of the Bill, which noble Lords believe are important, to be debated, we are told, in the middle of the night.
	Just before the Recess the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—whom I am always pleased to see in his place—talked to the House about the importance of changing our rules so that we finish by 10 o'clock. He said that the House was not at its best discussing amendments late at night. He is right. But that is exactly what the Government seem to be planning, not for minor technical adjustments but for fundamental changes. How long past 10 o'clock this Wednesday will we be expected to sit? The Government must already know this, since they must have decided it when they changed around the order of the clauses to be debated.
	Before today, the Government had already added a significant number of amendments to the Report stage, including seven new clauses, two of which are significant and complex clauses on British citizenship and juxtaposed controls. So the Government have been doing some work in the Recess, but not enough.
	This morning I woke to my usual alarm call of Radio 4 news to learn that the Home Secretary intends to pile yet more new clauses into the Bill without prior warning to the House. The Home Secretary seems to prefer to tell The Times and the BBC how the Bill will be amended this week rather than telling Parliament, or indeed his own party at its conference last week. There was no sign of all this in his speech.
	When will we see the clauses? We are told, "Soon". With such important changes, soon cannot be soon enough. We are told in the press that five significant new policies will be implemented by the new clauses. I shall refer only to two. That does not mean that I think that the others are any less important, but I am aware of the time. I do not want to hold your Lordships up for too long on something that is, after all, still a significant matter.
	The Government tell us in the newspapers today that they will start accepting refugees through the United Nations High Commission of Refugees from 1st April next year. For the first time this will provide an external gateway for those fleeing persecution. That completely changes current approaches to processing of asylum claims. It is a totally and utterly different policy. We must ask whether people in Zimbabwe will qualify under this policy? If not, why not?"
	I have the greatest respect for the UNHCR. I thank it for its briefing. I look forward to meeting it again in the future. But this measure appears to force us to surrender our own right to grant or to refuse certain applications for asylum. It creates a two-tier system. This has all the hallmarks of a panic measure to get the Home Secretary out of the hole he dug for himself in his chaotic handling of the asylum issue and his deal with Mr Sarcozy to persuade him to close Sangatte.
	The second matter is the safe country list which the Government are now talking about introducing. The Minister will know that I have an amendment tabled for Report which uses that method to resolve the vexed issue of non-suspensive appeals. I cannot now see any reason why the Government will even think of rejecting my amendment. But we shall want to examine carefully the Government's proposals, when we are allowed to see them. But that is just what the Government seem determined to prevent—full discussion.
	The Refugee Council's response to today's government press release is as follows:
	"These measures are highly undemocratic given they will fundamentally change the legislation currently before Parliament with almost no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and have all the feel of a Government in a state of panic".
	I agree.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. During the Summer Recess he was very generous with his time. We had a number of meetings. I think that he will agree that we were able to iron out many of the issues that were raised in Committee.
	I share the concern expressed by the Official Opposition. There are a number of issues that we need to address. Two days before the Bill's Report stage we are faced with—I counted earlier this morning—33, maybe more, new amendments. None of those has had detailed scrutiny in Committee. More importantly, the other place has had no knowledge of what the Government intend to introduce. The amendments have not been scrutinised by the Joint Human Rights Committee or the Delegated Powers Committee. More importantly, they have not had the scrutiny of Labour Party members. If they had been introduced 10 days before the party conference, at least then we would have had their views on these measures.
	There are some serious issues of concern here. One of the amendments is designed to deal with the "liability to detention" interpretation. My first concern is that the Government cannot even await the Oakington judgment. The case has been heard by the House of Lords, but it has yet to give its decision. One of the government amendments pre-empts its decision. That cannot be right. Why are the amendments so late in the day? Surely it would have been easier and better if the proper process of consultation had taken place, not only in terms of past help but also with some of the key agencies, including the UNHCR. At least we could have agreed on some common ground on the basis of which we could have proceeded further.
	I further quote from the statement which has just been issued by the Refugee Council. Its concern can be summed up. It states:
	"We cannot understand how a Government that repealed the 1996 Conservative legislation that resulted in thousands left destitute, living on the streets and relying on soup kitchens and charity, can now reintroduce similar policies by the backdoor without consultation".
	That causes a considerable problem. I do not believe that within the three days allocated to the Bill it is possible to deal in a substantive way with some of the Government's amendments.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should very much like to support warmly the indictment that my noble friend presented—she has not had much time to put it together—about the Government's cavalier treatment of the House in their handling of the Bill. I do not suppose that it is very much good my asking any particular questions of the Minister. There seems to be one overriding and much more important question, which perhaps the Leader of the House could deal with. That is, what on earth is the point of proceeding—as I imagine the Government intend—with proposals to make this House more efficient, and then to produce this kind of cavalier, sloppy and slovenly procedure which makes a mess of them? This is no part of the Opposition's handling of the Bill. This is just the Government not knowing how they ought to behave.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand that government is like facing fast bowling with both ends bowling at once. I therefore resolved, when I had been here about a month, that I would never object to the ordering of government business simply for my own convenience. I believe myself to have lived up to that; at least I hope so. But we are not dealing simply with our own convenience. We are dealing with the lives and liberties, and perhaps worth, of many innocent people.
	The measures announced today in The Times amount practically to a new Bill. Perhaps I may express the hope that these measures, which are of considerable importance, will not be taken in what Sherlock Holmes would have described as the hours of darkness in which the powers of the executive are exalted.
	I was also somewhat disconcerted to observe the Home Secretary using the words, "We will amend the Bill". I thought that was a matter for Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that Parliament is not yet redundant?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a Back-Bencher involved in the Bill, the first I heard of these changes was when I picked up the Order Paper this afternoon. I am now told that I must consider matters which I have not yet seen beginning the day after tomorrow. Does the Minister accept that this simply is not democratic? This Bill is about many people who want to come and live in this country because they believe it to be deeply democratic. Will the Government consider not taking the measures under Report stage rules? The way in which we discuss matters on Report is that each person may speak only once; the person proposing the amendment speaks first and at the end the Government speak once. That is not a debate. People should know that it is assumed on Report that we have already discussed the matter in Committee. But the Government do not seem to be interested in democracy. That is deeply worrying—even more worrying than is what they may do with the Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether that is really considered to be democratic?

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I agree with noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. Not only are we being denied the right to discuss matters properly, as we can in Committee; we have been denied the right to a Second Reading debate on them. That practice has previously been unheard of unless there has been an emergency. Those matters should be carefully considered. I declare my interest as a member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, which at present is in a shambles because no one knows what will happen. We are extremely concerned about the process and I should be most grateful if the Minister would reconsider.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I, too, am concerned about some aspects of the Government's policy on the matter but, in at least one respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has not got it right. We as a country have in the past had schemes under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for people to come here as asylum seekers or refugees—in particular, the Bosnians, who came under a scheme agreed with the UNHCR. So that suggestion is not new; it is simply another instalment of the policy that was sensibly introduced some years ago by the government supported by the noble Baroness.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the Motion. I especially regret not having had the pleasure of meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on Friday, as we had planned, but at that point I was not able to give her a definitive answer and I did not want to waste her time. That is why I had hoped that we could speak on the telephone today, but that was not possible, for reasons that I fully understand.
	With regard to the question of whether Report will take three or four days, as the noble Baroness implied, that is clearly a matter for the usual channels. She is right to say that changes are proposed. Some of those are the result of the Government listening to what was said from the Opposition Benches in Committee; no doubt those will become apparent later. In other respects, the changes are proposed because the Government think that the situation demands them. No one with any sense wants to introduce late amendments to a Bill, but neither would any Government with any sense who believed that circumstances required it avoid trying to get a Bill that is before Parliament into a form that they thought right and appropriate. That is what we are doing.
	With regard to the good question of when the amendments will be tabled, as ever, I should be happier if I had a copper-bottomed guarantee, but I am told that we shall do our utmost to table them tomorrow. If we cannot, we expect to table them on Wednesday.
	With regard to the debate about the UNHCR, as those who participated in Committee will recall, the Bill already gives power to open up such a resettlement programme. We debated that. What my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced was when he would introduce the first live part of such a resettlement programme—a more rational and sensible measure towards which we believe it is extremely important to start to move.
	With regard to our meetings with the French, they have been extremely co-operative about working with us to implement a system of juxtaposed control—which is why there is a measure in the Bill to that effect—which will make it increasingly possible to obtain their support and co-operation to stem the flow of illegal migration. I noted with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned to me at the beginning of last week about the Conservative proposal for a safe country list; we look forward to discovering to what extent we are at one on that issue.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his generous comment recognising the amount of time that the Government spent in discussion with opposition Peers over the summer. It was a pleasure to do so, because we are obliged to try to answer all questions raised in Committee. We sought to do that both face to face and by sending more than 100 letters to Members of the House about the queries raised during Committee.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I simply want to ask a question of fact. Is it impossible at this stage to revert to Committee to deal with the new business and to defer Report?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the House will know its procedures as well, if not better, than I in that respect. Such a process would in practice destroy the Bill, and that is not in the interest of good government or of the proper consideration of the House.

Earl Russell: My Lords, what the noble Baroness proposes was done in the case of the recommittal of the Jobseekers Bill and did not destroy that Bill.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I suggest that such matters are normally discussed between the usual channels.
	I stress that the Government are not acting lightly, flippantly or frivolously. Events over the summer have revealed significant abuses of our asylum system. In addition, the Government believe that we must—and have been working extremely hard over the summer to do so—bring before the House on Report the Bill that we think right. That is why, on this Bill as on many previous Bills, the Government have tabled amendments on Report. We have a duty to democracy and to the public to act in that way.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why cannot the amendments to the Bill be introduced early in the new Session, rather than now?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend would know the answer to that question. That would delay action that is urgently needed now for about nine months.
	As an illustration—although I regret being in danger of being drawn into the substance of the issue rather than the process—during the summer we received a considerable number of asylum applications from people from countries which on all the evidence we believe to be perfectly safe. The number of such applications has been a considerable source of embarrassment to the source countries, but we are obliged to deal with those applicants in the system and, if they demand it, give them support. The Bill sets out what we consider to be balanced and reasonable proposals to deal with that. We think that the House should have an adequate opportunity—hence the proposal to change the order of consideration—to consider those proposals.
	Turning, if I may, to other questions that were raised, it is clearly not every year that we have a Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—at least, one hopes not. It is therefore important to use the measure while it is before the House. Clearly, the House, or Parliament, is sovereign in those respects. While we intend to and will table amendments, Parliament will decide what it thinks is right. I clearly expect and hope that Parliament will lend its support to what we think are good and right actions.
	To address the remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar—as, in a sense, I already have—about issues on Second Reading, Bills change as they proceed and governments therefore introduce amendments at this stage.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, that is precisely why I asked that if entirely new clauses are to be inserted into the Bill we should be allowed to take them through the whole process. It is unfair to people outside for us to be bulldozed into having a Report stage only on entirely new amendments.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, although these are issues for the usual channels, I should hope that the House will have adequate time—and, I hope, not at too unseasonal an hour—to consider the new government amendments.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance here and now that the new amendments are consistent with the principle of the Bill? Surely, that is the point that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, was making.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can give that assurance strongly and clearly. The amendments are consistent with the principle that we set out at the beginning in the White Paper published in January. We shall continue to give four-square commitment to meeting our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention to defend people who are subject to political persecution. At the same time, we shall balance that by trying to develop economic migration, while recognising that many people, for understandable reasons, seek to use asylum as a means of economic migration.
	The aim of the Government, the aim of the White Paper and the aim of the amendments is to ensure that we stand four-square with those issues and do not confuse them. We shall be resolute in their achievement.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I must, first of all, say to the Minister that he did not answer the question about whether the Select Committee on Human Rights would have the opportunity to consider the new clauses. Secondly, I must say that, when we see the amendments—tomorrow or whenever it turns out to be—we shall need to consider whether to press for recommitment in respect of the new clauses that are being inserted into the Bill. It is being described—I say this provisionally, as none of us knows exactly what is in the new clauses—as a wholly new Bill.
	We do not wish to hold up the existing Bill; we are suggesting that the House should examine properly the new clauses and new principles that are being inserted into the Bill. That is all the more important when we consider that, were the clauses to be inserted after any process or set of processes in this House, the only opportunity for the other place to examine them would be when it came to consider Lords amendments—that is to say, one brief debate. Under that House's new timetable arrangements, that represents an extremely brief opportunity to consider the new principles that are being inserted.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches will not oppose today's Motion because the new amendments come towards the end of the Bill. However, like the Official Opposition Front Bench, we must consider carefully whether it would be appropriate to put down a Motion for the recommittment of the parts of the Bill to which the amendments relate. The amendments introduce new matters and require proper consideration. It would be in the interests of the House for that to be agreed to through the usual channels.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as is so often the case, I am grateful to both Opposition Chief Whips and am particularly grateful for the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that his party would not oppose the Motion at this point but would consider the matter. That was also the thrust of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
	We will consider the issue of the involvement of the Select Committee carefully, but, essentially, the issues are for discussion and consideration by the usual channels. Those discussions will, of course, take place.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, the Minister cannot get away this afternoon with hiding behind the curtain of the usual channels and saying that he cannot discuss the possibility of recommitting the Bill. We understand that he cannot answer for the usual channels, but we ought to hear something from either the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip about the possibility of recommitting the clauses. That is an important point about our consideration.
	As the Clerks will, no doubt, tell us, there are many examples of occasions on which the parliamentary consideration of a Bill has been put back one step because important new issues, which—to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—are consistent with the principle of the Bill, have been parachuted in. I can remember one off the top of my head. In the late 1970s, in another place, Lord Peart, a former Minister of Agriculture, introduced some new clauses into an agriculture Bill. They were consistent with the Bill but gave rise to entirely new principles. We made exactly the sort of fuss that noble Lords have made this afternoon. As a result, the usual channels in another place agreed at the Committee stage that we would have a day to give the new clauses a Second Reading and discuss them properly. There must be many other examples of occasions on which a government have been prepared to go back a step when important new principles have been announced.
	I hope that either we will now hear the two business managers in your Lordships' House say that they will consider seriously the recommitment of the clauses or that they will announce this afternoon that they will grant us an opportunity to do that.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has explained very well—I hope, to the House's satisfaction—the reason why it was necessary to table the amendments on Report. It is by no means unprecedented for governments or anyone else to propose new clauses on Report. That is one of the reasons why we have Report stage.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that, when we have a fast-moving situation, it is appropriate that we, as one of the two Houses of Parliament, should be the lead Chamber in considering matters relating to any relevant legislation that is passing through Parliament, if that is the stage that the legislation has reached. I am sure that no one has any doubt that the House will properly consider the amendments, by whatever means are deemed to be fair and satisfactory. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We have a splendid reputation for doing that for all legislation and especially for legislation, such as this, which affects human rights, among other things.
	I have had the pleasure of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in operation in a senior capacity in another place, and I am sure that he knows that negotiations about precise procedures would not take place at the Dispatch Box. It is fair and reasonable to ask the House to accept that the usual channels—we heard from three of them today—should consider what the House has said and discuss the matter in the normal way. I hope that, in the meantime, the House will accept my noble friend's proposal.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animal Health Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	With the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on the Government's position on the Bill. On 25th July, we considered the scrapie provisions of the Bill, and I gave an undertaking that I would let noble Lords know how the Government intended to deal with the parts of the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports that relate to the Bill. I recently wrote to noble Lords who had participated in earlier debates, indicating how the Government had taken account of the reports of the FMD inquiries, with regard to the disease control parts of the Bill, and setting out my proposals for government amendments. I also indicated how I had taken account of the points made at Second Reading and during discussion of the two procedural Motions on the Bill in March and July. I shall expand on that in a moment.
	First, however, I must apologise to noble Lords who received that letter. Not all the amendments to which I referred will be before the Committee today. Specifically, the amendments on the contingency plan and on import controls are not yet finalised. Due to unfortunate delays, I have been unable to table in time the amendments relating to the publication of reasons for using the new preventive slaughter power and the requirement to consult on and publish a disease control protocol and the amendment requiring that compensation for compulsorily slaughtered FMD vaccinates be set at 100 per cent of the market value of the animal at the time of slaughter. I can assure the Committee that all those amendments will be tabled for the Report stage and that they will follow the outline I gave in the letter to which I shall refer soon.
	The Government, as a matter of priority and before finalising our full response to the Anderson and Royal Society reports, have been assessing the recommendations of those reports and of the National Audit Office in relation to the contents of the Bill. We have decided that we should amend the Bill in a number of ways to reflect the terms and recommendations of the inquiries and some of the points raised in this House and elsewhere. I believe that we have been able to address some of the concerns of the stakeholders, such as the NFU, with some of our proposed amendments.
	I should make clear that our comprehensive response to the Lessons to be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries were intended to be published in late October or early November and I cannot pre-empt the publication of that response on other matters. However, we have given priority consideration to those aspects of the inquiries that could impact on the Bill.
	The Lessons to be Learned inquiry, under Dr Anderson, mentions the issue of legislation and makes two recommendations. The first is that,
	"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic. The powers available in the Animal Health Act 1981 should be re-examined, possibly in the context of a wider review of animal health legislation, to remove any ambiguity over the legal basis for future disease control strategies".
	Secondly, it said that,
	"Provision should be made for the possible application of pre-emptive culling policies, if justified by well-informed veterinary and scientific advice, and judged to be appropriate to the circumstances".
	Those recommendations support the central part of this Bill, which deals with the new power to cull animals,
	"to prevent the spread of the disease",
	and, implicitly, to clarify the powers of entry.
	I should also make it clear that although the Government do not agree that the Animal Health Act 1981 powers are "ambiguous", as suggested in the report, we nevertheless recognise that greater clarity would be desirable and that current powers do not go far enough to underpin some aspects of disease control—notably pre-emptive culling and emergency vaccination—which the inquiries advocate.
	The Government's view is that we need to obtain the additional culling powers and powers of entry for vaccination or culling as soon as possible through the present Bill and that that should not wait for a wider review of animal health legislation. However, I believe that the recommendations in the Lessons to be Learned inquiry report clearly support the need to obtain the additional powers provided in the Bill as a matter of urgency.
	I also need to deal with the issue of vaccination in the light of the reports which have appeared in the media from the EU and the concern about how we might use vaccination in a future outbreak. It is important to recognise that the powers in the Bill relate not only to slaughter but also to alternative and complementary strategies for combating the virus, specifically vaccination. For vaccination to be effective, it requires just the powers of entry and the speed of execution that the Bill will provide. Vaccination, even more than culling, will fail if there are loopholes in the system.
	The option of emergency vaccination now forms part of the Government's interim contingency plan for the control of foot and mouth disease. The Government's view is that the powers in the Bill, particularly those allowing clearer powers of entry to vaccinate, are critical in ensuring that any future emergency vaccination programme could be completed comprehensively.
	The Government's preference, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in July, is that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be used wherever possible, in line with the Royal Society report. However, there will be scenarios where vaccinate-to-slaughter may be appropriate. The Bill will complete the powers we need effectively to implement whichever strategy is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances. Powers are also needed for serological surveillance through the administration of blood testing.
	The Bill strengthens the powers in two main respects; first, the need for clear powers of preventive slaughter together with the power to slaughter vaccinated animals, and, secondly, the need for powers providing for swifter entry to farms for the purposes of vaccination, slaughter or testing. Together with existing legislation, these powers will provide for a wide range of disease control options.
	The Government have tabled some amendments and, as I indicated, intend to table further amendments directly addressing concerns which noble Lords have raised about the nature of the Bill's powers. Those will introduce some significant changes to the Bill.
	I shall table an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for using the new preventive slaughter power. Before using the power, the Secretary of State will have to publish a justification of the need to use it in the prevailing circumstances. I shall also table an amendment introducing a requirement to consult on, and publish, a "disease control (slaughter) protocol".
	I am aware that some have criticised the Bill for removing the so-called "right of appeal" against entry for vaccination, slaughter or other purposes, but that is not the case. The Bill replaces the current procedure for securing entry to premises on the authority of a High Court injunction with a far swifter procedure based on a magistrate's warrant. However, the existing procedure whereby a farmer may seek review by a senior vet of a decision to cull and make representations to him will continue to be available. However, in response to concerns regarding the warrant procedures, I have tabled amendments to strengthen the conditions in the Bill that a magistrate must be satisfied have been met before granting a warrant to obtain entry.
	Concerns have also been expressed that the Government might not fully compensate farmers if vaccinated animals were compulsorily slaughtered for disease control purposes. I believe that there are strong grounds for clarifying the position. I shall therefore table an amendment requiring compensation for compulsorily slaughtered vaccinates to be set at 100 per cent of market value of the animal at the time of slaughter; that is, as if it had not been vaccinated.
	I also had intended tabling an amendment providing for the Government to report annually on actions taken to prevent illegal imports of animal products, in addition to the existing requirement in the 1981 Act to report on diseased live animals imported into Great Britain. In view of the fact that we have not tabled an amendment in time for the Committee stage, I am prepared, with qualifications, to accept Amendment No. 96 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greaves, to the same effect. It may be necessary to tidy it up subsequently, but the principle is accepted and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
	One of the overriding themes of the inquiry reports is the need for contingency planning. We have done much work on that during the past year. Nevertheless, given the weight placed on that issue by the inquiries, it is appropriate that we require on the face of the Bill that the Government prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a national contingency plan. I had hoped that I could have tabled the amendment for the Committee stage, but I can assure noble Lords that I will table it in good time for Report.
	Finally, the Bill provides for an adjusted compensation scheme designed to encourage high standards of biosecurity on farms by adjusting compensation where biosecurity provisions have not been observed. I am aware that in farming circles there has been considerable opposition to that part of the Bill. The inquiries do not help us here. The Government regret that the industry and the opposition parties have not felt able to go down that line, which could improve biosecurity. However, it is also true that the National Audit Office report points out some serious concerns about the whole operation of the valuation system and the system for compensation and raises the degree to which taxpayers should meet full compensation in all circumstances. In the light of that, we now intend a full- scale review of the basis of compensation and valuation in the case of foot and mouth and other diseases. As regards those other diseases, the arrangements differ somewhat. This will need to take into account issues of risk sharing and proposals for levy or insurance-based schemes and will therefore go considerably wider than the provisions of the Bill.
	We have therefore decided not to proceed with this provision of the Bill and will be accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, which deletes that part of the Bill and the associated schedule.
	I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for repeating a quotation, but the point of the Bill is summarised in the Phillips inquiry into BSE. It stated that,
	"legislation should clearly empower Ministers to take precautionary measures in a situation where the existence of a hazard is uncertain".
	That is precisely why we brought forward the Bill.
	It is true that the Bill adds to the sets of circumstances in which an animal could be culled the criterion "to prevent the spread of disease". But that should not lead to the culling of more animals. The opposite will be our aim, as considerable scientific evidence supports the view that by culling or, indeed, vaccinating quickly in the early stages we could prevent further spread of the disease.
	The proposed amendments together provide a package which will result in a Bill that provides the Government with the powers they need but at the same time meets some of the concerns expressed in the House. They will ensure that the Bill is reasonable and proportionate and that decisions will be explained in an open and transparent manner. I apologise for the length of the Statement. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, do the Government have any intention of allowing noble Lords other than those on the Front Benches to have a copy of the very extensive and complicated Statement he has made? Going at the speed he did, the Minister was asking much too much of most of us if he expected us to digest this very detailed Statement. It would be quite unfair to the House—and especially to the Back-Benchers who had no notice of what he was going to say—to continue any discussion on the Bill until a copy of the Statement has been made available to all noble Lords.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, although not all of the amendments set out in the letters I sent to noble Lords who participated in the debate previously are tabled today, we intend to do so. The only additional information is that we propose accepting the amendment on import controls and the amendment to delete the adjusted compensation.
	I shall ensure that a copy of the Statement is made available in the Printed Paper Office as rapidly as possible. This will ensure that noble Lords who are interested are informed of the Statement and will enable us to proceed appropriately when we reach those parts of the Bill.
	I reiterate that the purpose of the Statement is to underline that the intentions in the letter, which most noble Lords who have previously participated have already received, will be fulfilled.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I should like to add my concerns to those which I suspect will be expressed by other noble Lords. My noble friend asked when we received the Statement. I was surprised that my copy, which was brought up especially for me, arrived on my desk at 2.40 p.m. today. Had I been in the Chamber during Questions, I would not have received it. The Statement took some 12 minutes to read. I have had a chance to look at it, but obviously not in great detail. As my noble friend said, clearly we need to do so.
	Perhaps I may make one or two comments on where we are. Today we have had a second Statement on a second Bill on which the Government, through their own fault, have got themselves into a mess yet again. That is nothing new with this Bill; it was running into a mess back in March. The Government have had six months to get their act together. Indeed, since we last debated the Bill, nine weeks have elapsed before the Government have decided to get their act together.
	I am sure that most other noble Lords who tried to work on the Bill during the Recess—which most of us did—found it most difficult having to wait for government amendments which did not arrive. That is why I make no apology for Amendment No. 103A, to which we shall come later, being so huge and difficult. It seeks to force the Government at least to debate the broader issues to which the noble Lord referred. We have been very patient with the Government but on this occasion, on this Bill, they have dealt with us somewhat shabbily.
	The Government said that they would wait for the reports of the National Audit Office, the Royal Society and Professor Anderson, look at the costs and the science surrounding the issue and come up with conclusions. If I were to refer to many of the issues which came out of the reports I would be accused of making a Second Reading speech—which, heaven forbid, I do not wish to do at this stage—but there are three matters arising which are relevant to the way in which we should now proceed.
	One matter concerns the whole question of contingency plans. As it stands, the Bill deals only with slaughter; it does not deal with any other options. That is something we should look at. The reports deal also with the way in which the State Veterinary Service operated and with alternative measures. They were reinforced by the European Parliament's recently produced Working Group 5a report, of which other noble Lords have had copies. Paragraphs 50, 54 and 57 of that report—I could refer to many more—highlight the question of vaccination and how it should fit into some kind of animal health protection or animal health legislation.
	Paragraph 50 refers to the fact that the decision on vaccination is in any case not a purely scientific matter but a political one, and yet we are being asked today to give approval to issues about which we need to talk more broadly than we are able to with the Bill as it stands. Paragraph 54 states that vaccinations are available which make it possible, at least on a herd by herd basis, to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. When we debated the Bill in March it was not said that it was possible to do that. It now is—and yet we still have the same Bill, with promised government amendments for which we are waiting. Paragraph 57 very tellingly states that vaccination must be considered as a first-choice option from the outset when an outbreak occurs. That is a major change from what we have been considering. Those three issues perhaps highlight the very difficult position in which the Government have placed us today.
	Obviously there are many other points I should like to raise but I shall leave them and allow other noble Lords to make them in their contributions. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated the Government's acceptance of two of our points, but if it had not been for the push from our Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and other noble Lords who have tabled amendments, I suspect that the Government would not have moved the Bill forward. We are going one step forward with at least two hands tied behind our backs because we do not have the amendments to which the Minister referred. It is a ridiculous position to be in.
	Amendments were laid by the Opposition and other noble Lords in September—well before October—but we still await some government amendments. We acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has moved to rid the Bill of some of the worst conditions surrounding the issue of warrants and to clarify the kind of people who will be required to assist inspectors and to ensure that inspectors are reasonable in their demands for help. But the Government have had time to serve us better. They surely cannot accuse the previous government of putting them in this position. I wish to record my extreme unhappiness of continuing with a Bill—we shall be debating it again tomorrow—on which we have some information but still do not know when government amendments will be available or what they will include.

Lord Moran: My Lords, as usual I declare a marginal interest—our very small herd of Welsh Black cattle in mid-Wales.
	Speaking as one of the usual suspects on the Bill, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the letters he has sent me, as promised, informing me of what the Government intended to do and giving me some of the amendments he planned to move. These letters were helpful and I have listened carefully to his Statement, although, like others, I shall wish to study it carefully.
	The government amendments change some of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill as it stood—for example, limiting the requirement to provide assistance to the keeper of the stock and those in charge of the animals. They also meet one or two of the other points made in earlier debates in the House. Finally they seek to meet some of the points made in the reports of the inquiries, to which the Government are only to respond at the end of this month or in early November.
	But a number of the key recommendations seem to have been ignored. For example, the Royal Society's report, which struck me as particularly valuable, called for contingency plans to be brought before Parliament for debate and approval; the Government to bring before Parliament a framework for the contingency plans covering the principles involved in handling outbreaks of infectious exotic diseases; the tightening of import controls over meat, together with a much more co-ordinated approach at every level by all bodies concerned with import controls; a commitment to consider emergency vaccination as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak instead of as a last resort—the Royal Society says that emergency vaccination could be far more appropriate than the alternative of extensive culling—the preparation of a regulating framework and practical arrangements, including the supply of vaccines; consideration of ways to minimise animal movements; and a national strategy for animal disease research.
	None of that was mentioned in the noble Lord's letters or covered by the government amendments but some of those matters were included in his statement. The noble Lord stated in his letter to me of 25th September that
	"the central features of this part of the Bill remain unchanged".
	I read that with despair. I said on Second Reading on 14th January that the Bill might more appropriately be entitled the "Animal Slaughter Facilitation Bill". On 26th March and 25th July, I said that Part 1 was,
	"based entirely on legalising and extending the mass slaughter of animals".
	I am astonished that under the huge weight of criticism in your Lordships' House and outside, the Government should still be keen on a policy of mass slaughter. Little wonder that Dr. Anderson called in the lessons to be learned report for a
	"reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours"
	within DEFRA. The Government and the department seem determined not to listen to their critics. Help is at hand. I am not an enthusiast of the European Union—I would be much happier if we came out of it—but we belong for the present. Agriculture is one of the areas for which we have handed over responsibility to Brussels—which has, it seems, decided to take over the running of foot and mouth policy from the UK and other member states. Reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times on 12th and 13th September said that the Commission was planning to take over responsibility for the handling of foot and mouth disease and to that end had prepared a draft directive that is to be published this month. Meantime, an interim report has been published by the rapporteur of the EU temporary committee on foot and mouth.
	I have not seen the whole text but reports quote that committee as saying that,
	"The mass slaughter policy employed to control foot-and-mouth disease last year was based on flawed scientific models and probably did not help curb the epidemic".
	The policy was said to have,
	"dubious legal grounds and may have led to animal welfare abuses".
	The committee makes a number of recommendations, including
	"vaccination as a 'first choice' control option in future".
	It added that
	"some farmers were intimidated and pressurised into having animals culled".
	I would normally be reluctant to see responsibility moved from London—where we can at least put our views to the Government, however little attention they pay—to Brussels, where we have no influence. In this instance, I admit that in contrast to an invincibly obstinate British Government bent on making mass slaughter easier, the European Parliament's committee seems to be taking a much more enlightened view—almost identical with that of the Royal Society, laying the main emphasis on emergency vaccination-to-live.
	My noble friend Lord May, president of the Royal Society, kindly sent me the text of a speech by Commissioner David Byrne to the EU temporary committee on 12th September, in which he said:
	"It is no longer acceptable to the public that large numbers of animals can be slaughtered and destroyed now that new diagnostic tests have been developed and are available which differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals . . . the Commission is of the view that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism in the event of future outbreaks . . . vaccination had been viewed as a weapon of last resort. It is now time to break with this approach".
	Commissioner Byrne added that there would shortly be a Commission proposal for a European Council directive on foot and mouth disease on those lines, which he described as a "blockbuster" proposal running to more than 130 pages.
	Like many of your Lordships, the Commissioner spoke also of,
	"serious concerns that poor controls over imports from third countries were at the origin of last year's outbreak".
	We have now heard from the boss. The draft directive is to be published this month. In the circumstances, surely it would be sensible to defer consideration of the Bill until we know exactly what the directive says, whether the Bill is compatible with it and whether we need a Bill at all now that the Commission is taking over the problem.
	If we are to proceed, it would seem sensible for the Bill to have at least specific guidelines and powers for dealing with reactive vaccination, explicit requirements for contingency planning and regular consultations with experts on disease control. Those provisions need to be as clearly prescriptive as those for preventive slaughter and to provide for keeping fully up to date with scientific advances. We do not want the Bill to be out of date by the time it receives Royal Assent.
	I hope that we shall hear from the Minister soon about his plans, now that he has heard his master's voice and had ample time to study the inquiry reports. I hope that the noble Lord will decide to wait until the draft directive is published.
	A vote at this stage would not be appropriate, especially as the Official Opposition is holding its policy conference this week. However, if the Government remain obdurate, the House may wish to divide on the issue on Report.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who spoke with a great deal of wisdom and raised a number of important points. I thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on imports, for which we are most grateful.
	It has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the issues so I welcome the opportunity provided by the Statement to make a few comments. I cannot see how we can address a contingency plan adequately with no amendment before us. Nor is there any amendment on a new preventive slaughter policy, when the policy adopted in 2001 was so controversial. Indeed, we await a disease slaughter control. Vaccination is a crucial aspect and one that caused frenetic debate at all levels during the 2001 outbreak. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the EU will tackle many of the issues within one month. There is also a report from the European Parliament on the British Government's conduct in 2001.
	All those factors could contribute greatly to a far better Bill. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that the department requires additional legislation in case of another outbreak before a new Act is in place. I view the Bill as interim legislation to cope with that situation but down the line much more comprehensive legislation will be required to ensure that our law is contiguous with that of the European Union. The points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord could be taken into account to produce eventually a good Bill and Act. If the Minister's intention is that the Bill should serve as an interim measure, he should make that clearer than he has done.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we should remember that the Marshalled List contains 320 amendments. Every subject that noble Lords, quite correctly, want to discuss in Committee is there. We can debate the contingency plan in dealing with Amendment No. 99. We can debate strategy in relation to Amendment No. 103A, vaccination in relation to Amendment No. 268, and the European Union report in relation to Amendment No. 316. The House is not being denied the chance to debate these matters in full and hear the Government's response.
	The Government—unusually—have already said what they intend to do. The discussion in Committee will inform the drafting which the Government now say they will bring forward on Report. The situation has been extremely unusual. As a result of the way in which the Bill has been handled in this House the Government have already had the chance, before the House goes into Committee, to indicate their thinking on the various issues. We have seen the letter that has been sent out and some amendments have been proposed. So the Government have indicated their thinking. We can debate all the various issues in Committee, hear the Government's response and possibly improve the Government's thinking. Then, in the normal way, the Government will bring forward amendments at a later stage. That is entirely normal.

Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right. That is the normal way to proceed. But the Minister has in effect just delivered a Second Reading speech at Committee stage, so we do not find ourselves, as it were, in the normal mode of procedure. The Minister wrote to many of us who are involved with the Bill, and I was grateful to receive his letter. But the noble Lord has raised important issues. Some clarity is required. Before we can proceed, we need to know what is happening.
	On the question of vaccination, has new information come to light during the course of the summer which will have a bearing on the way in which this House will determine the outcome of the Bill? With the leave of the House, I should like to raise two specific questions on vaccination.
	First, is it the Government's intention that compensation will be payable for animals which are vaccinated and not slaughtered? As matters stand, such animals may not necessarily be allowed to enter the food chain. It seems a gross injustice if an animal can be vaccinated, not be allowed into the food chain and not be compensated for. I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a clear indication of what would happen in that case.
	Secondly, in the letter that the Minister kindly circulated to us, he refers to the most appropriate strategy in any future outbreak. It is perfectly clear to me that the most appropriate strategy will be to try to find a system of accurately testing suspected livestock within as short a period as possible, thus ensuring that hundreds of thousands of animals are not slaughtered unnecessarily and that farmers' livelihoods are protected. Before the Summer Recess, it was my knowledge that such a system was not in place. But do I gather from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that matters have changed? If that is the case, the situation is very different and there should be incorporated within legislation a clause that makes effective testing mandatory before any culling can take place. If that is done, the farmer concerned can be satisfied that his stock have in fact contracted a particular disease, matters will be above board and everyone will be clear as to what is going on. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the House whether that is now the situation? If so, it is very different from what it was when we discussed the Bill previously.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moran. His wisdom, as always, should be listened to. The situation is fluid, as he and other speakers have made clear. I am concerned that we shall be discussing legislation that will be out of date in six months' time.
	I recognise the Minister's need to be able to deal quickly with an outbreak of disease. He can probably have the assurance of most people in the farming industry who have been involved with the recent foot and mouth outbreak that they will have the support of the farmers whose animals are involved. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. However, the Minister needs to reassure us that the measures to be taken are not over the top.
	The Minister may have heard a programme on Radio 4 on Friday or Saturday on which a Mrs Morris from my locality, Worcester, spoke about the numbers of animals that were killed unnecessarily because they were regarded as contiguous to animals that were not infected at all. We need to bring into legislation the new rapid diagnostic tests and all the differences in terms of vaccination—whether the vaccinated animals will be killed or whether they will live and possibly enter the food chain. There needs to be an exercise in public education. People need to understand that most of the animals that they eat now have already been vaccinated against a number of diseases and that we suffer no problems as a result.
	So I have all kinds of concerns about the Bill. My own preference is to wait and see what the EU comes up with, then to introduce a Bill dealing with all those matters in one go, properly, at our leisure. The noble Lord should trust the farmers. Incidentally, he made a blanket reference to farmers. Most of the severe problems arose in relation to dealers. There is a need to distinguish in legislation between what I call proper farmers, and dealers. I should be grateful if the Minister would give that some thought.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we are in an unusual position in debating these matters at Committee stage. I agree with the remarks of the noble Countess and the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
	It is appropriate that we should consider in general terms why we are where we are in relation to the Bill at this stage. Most of us hoped that we should not be at this stage. At Second Reading in January, most of us criticised the Bill sharply. A great deal of time has elapsed since then and there has been a great deal of change, not least in the science of vaccination. Major reports have been published and others are pending. The European Union report is to be published shortly, and there is the Government's definitive response to their own inquiry reports. It seems extraordinary that we should be pursuing detailed Committee points on parts of the Bill when we still do not know what amendments the Government propose to bring forward on some critical and important matters.
	We have just had an extended debate on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and on the extraordinary procedural difficulties that we are in as a result of having substantive amendments moved on Report when the issues involved ought to have been discussed at Second Reading or at the very least in Committee. It places the House in an extraordinary position in trying to tackle important issues.
	Because so many criticisms were levelled at this Bill at Second Reading, I believe that most noble Lords expected far more radical changes to be made by the Government. I echo what has been said in gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his kindness in writing to me and in sending in advance a copy of the essence of his Statement. I want to express gratitude for some of the government amendments which have met some of the criticisms that were made in the course of the Second Reading debate and the debate in March. However, I still feel that this is a deeply defective Bill.
	Were I a theologian—I hesitate to claim that title—I would say that this is a sinful Bill, giving the word "sin" its proper root meaning. Every student of elementary New Testament Greek is told that the word "sin" comes from a word in classical Greek which does not mean "doing a bad thing"—that is the wide misunderstanding of sin—but which means "missing the mark". Thucydides refers to people throwing a spear or shooting an arrow and missing the target. There is reference to someone who takes the wrong turning on a journey. That is "sin". It is making a mistake of that kind, falling short of what you should be aiming at. In Plato and Aristotle the word has come to mean "an error of judgment". By any standard, this Bill misses the mark, falls short of where it should have gone, takes many wrong turns and fails to address a great many of the issues which were extremely pressing at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak this time last year.
	One can imagine what was going on in DEFRA this time last year: an attitude of despair, total bewilderment and perplexity. The outbreak had been a disaster and its handling had been a catastrophe. There were various targets which could have been addressed by new legislation, in particular illegal meat imports. We still await action on that. If we simply debate the amendments we shall not have a serious debate about how we control illegal meat imports.
	I returned twice to an airport in this country during the summer Recess. I had absolutely no indication that anyone minded what I brought with me. There was no notice, no questions, no sniffer dogs—nothing. The NFU survey of 10,000 people returning to this country produced exactly the same result. Ninety-nine per cent of those people did not know about it. I looked for it. It is not in this Bill. It may be that we shall have the promise of further amendments at Report stage, but is that good enough?
	Are proper information systems in place? There was such confusion over this matter during the outbreak. Have we the opportunity to debate that during the course of this Committee stage? The State Veterinary Service was dismantled by the previous Conservative government in the 1980s. That service needs to be rebuilt. There should be adequate contingency plans which are rehearsed and practised regularly.
	We may have the chance to touch on some of these matters as we debate the amendments. But the fact of the matter is that, as several noble Lords have said, we need comprehensive, new legislation which goes to the root of all these issues and not simply to look at one aspect of one part of the solution to the problem, which is how we deal with an outbreak through culling or vaccination. I welcome the references to vaccination which have crept into these amendments, but I hope that there will be vaccination to live and only in exceptional cases would there be vaccination to slaughter.
	We really do need new legislation. We need to go back to the drawing board and to produce a comprehensive Bill which will win the enthusiastic support of the farming and livestock industry. I am very worried that if we pursue this debate at this stage of the Committee proceedings on a limited number of amendments, we do so knowing that the farming community is deeply hostile to what is going on and still does not believe that the Government understand the position and the problems which farmers face and the despair which affects so many of them. The 407,000 people who took part in the march cannot have been wrong. Many agendas were running on that particular day. I fervently wish that we could be addressing more of those questions than simply the small number which will arise during this Committee stage.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may detain your Lordships' attention for a very short time. I totally accept what the right reverend Prelate has said about the need for a new and comprehensive Bill. I have tabled a series of amendments which are based on the assumption of slaughter. There is no other assumption. For that purpose certain new rights are claimed such as entry into premises and co-operation: if people co-operate this will happen; if they do not, then that will happen, with penal conditions and so forth.
	Nobody has written to me about it and there is no reason why they should. I have been sitting here and listening to what is going on. It now appears that the whole scenario has changed. What am I supposed to do with my amendments? They are designed wholly for slaughter, but we are now going to talk about vaccination. I suppose that the best thing to do is to pack it in and, so to speak, shove off. But is that the way to deal with the Bill? How is it to be dealt with? Am I going to be given time to talk to a few of my friends in the farming community and redraft my amendments? Lord, no! There is not an earthly chance of that. It is the kind of imposition against which I personally protest and I do not believe that the House should indulge it.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the right reverend Prelate and others, that we are following a slightly unusual procedure today because, under pressure from noble Lords during the first day of Committee, I was asked to make clear at the beginning of the second day how the Government intended to proceed with the remainder of the Bill. That was broadly welcomed by the House and that is why I made the Statement today, which is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
	We need to recognise the history of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, asked if it was an interim measure. We first proposed this Bill several months ago in the shadow of the foot and mouth disease. The House voted not to proceed with it at that point until we had the outcomes of the committees of inquiry. We now have them. Since July we have considered in detail the implications for this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he is unhappy that the central features of the Bill still remain. The reason is that there was very strong support for it in the two inquiry reports. They indicated very clearly, first, that we needed to widen the scope for slaughter and vaccination to ensure that we can carry out a disease-control strategy which had some pre-emptive culling or vaccination. Secondly, the powers of entry needed to ensure that we rapidly carried out those powers. Both those measures are now firmly based in the recommendations of the reports and that is why the central features of the Bill have not been significantly altered.
	What has altered is the reassurances that people sought about the warrant procedure, the protocol and clarification of the reasons for such a policy. I am committed to all of them. They are either on the agenda today in my name or I am committed to producing them for Report stage. The same applies for contingency planning and import controls where I have indicated that I will accept the gist of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
	We have also responded to the strong view from the industry that the provisions on adjusted compensation would not be appropriate and that as they stand they would alienate rather than help to carry out disease control. With that section being removed, I believe that the bulk of the farming industry would actually support the remaining provisions of this Bill. Therefore, I do not believe that it is going against the view among farmers in general, although some will have different opinions.
	The issue of vaccination has obviously concerned a number of noble Lords who have spoken. I made clear from the early stages of this Bill that the powers we were seeking were those needed for a wholesale vaccination process as much as for a wholesale culling process. One needs powers for rapid entry in order to carry out vaccination as much as one needs them for culling. Indeed, it could be argued that for a vaccination process to be effective one needs even fewer loopholes than one can afford under the culling process.
	It is true that the Royal Society and, it would appear, the European committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred, and others, say that vaccination should be higher in the priority of weapons used in disease control. We made a Statement on 25th July which I repeated in this House. We indicated that we accepted the proposition that vaccination should be a weapon of first resort, where appropriate, rather than last. Not all circumstances will be appropriate: the vaccination available may not be appropriate. Moreover, we accept the recommendation that the procedure should be normally to vaccinate to live rather than was the case as regards the options we considered during the previous disease and the options followed in the Netherlands, namely, vaccinate to kill.
	What is needed and what this Bill provides, are powers to cover all of those options so that we have flexibility, clarity of law and speed of operation to carry out vaccination to live or as a prelude to slaughter or to the culling process. The powers are the same. If the EU raises the priority given to vaccination, we shall still need these powers to carry out the vaccination programme.
	Therefore, the issue of whether we carry out vaccination more substantially than we carry out culling and whether the balance changes represents an important signal to the farming community and to society at large as regards how we would deal with a future disease. However, in terms of the powers in this Bill, those same powers will be required. That is why the central part of the Bill has not changed. I am conscious of the anxieties about proportionality, about transparency, and about explanations given to farmers and other livestock owners. All such issues are now covered either by the amendments that I have tabled for today, by amendments tabled in the names of other noble Lords, or, indeed, by amendments that will be available on Report.
	I believe that we shall end up with a better Bill than the one with which we began. It will certainly be a slightly narrower Bill than was the case originally. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, that does not preclude our returning to some of these issues in pursuit of a more substantial piece of legislation at a later stage. When first proposed, this Bill was meant to cover us for the immediate period. It will still need to cover us for some considerable time until we have fully developed the animal health strategy that emerged from the reports, including the European report that will shortly be before the House.
	However, in the immediate period, we have already lost several months by not having the powers that the Government were convinced we needed earlier in the year. The committees of inquiry support the fact that we need those powers and, by and large, with the compensation requirements removed, the farming community accept that we will need them. Without further ado, I suggest that we move forward to deal with the substantive amendments. Therefore, I beg to move, once again, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have one suggestion for the Minister to consider. We have about four weeks until the State Opening of Parliament. Would it not be miles better to take away this Bill, reintroduce it in the dog days of the early part of the Session to your Lordships' House and do so in a way whereby we could have time to consider it properly and get it through this Chamber in, say, six weeks? We would have it ready to go to the Commons before Christmas, and it could be out of the other place fairly quickly. In those circumstances, the Bill would have been well scrutinised in this place and we would not have this gobbledegook of how not to approach legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is clever enough to realise the advantage of my suggestion. As for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, he is much cleverer than the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He can certainly see the advantage of such an approach. I am not being beastly to the Government; I am trying to suggest to them a way out of what is a ghastly legislative muddle. We must get this right. If we do it in the way now proposed, it is likely to become a sort of Mark l, gold-plated "Dangerous Dogs Bill". I am sure that neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, nor the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would like to see that happen.

Earl Peel: My Lords, without going into the merits of who is the cleverer, perhaps I may return to the simple question of vaccination. I believe that I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us that the powers of entry are the same whether or not vaccination is the means of controlling the disease or part of the culling process. I am sure we all acknowledge that fact; indeed, we all acknowledge the need for the Government to have such powers. However, I have one fundamental point to make and should be most grateful for the Minister's response.
	I refer to the question of vaccinated animals that are not slaughtered but are prevented from entering the food chain. In such circumstances, is it the Government's intention that farmers with such animals will be fully compensated? The answer to that question is absolutely essential to the way that this Bill proceeds.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister said that he needs these measures. However, in a state of emergency, has he considered issuing orders to cover such matters? This has been done frequently to cover all sorts of situations in emergencies on previous occasions. Further, as other noble Lords, especially the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, have suggested, will the noble Lord consider taking away the Bill and rehashing it to take into account not only what the European Union is saying but also what the other reports have found? In that way, we would have something that is a composite, not a hotchpotch.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, he said that the Government have reconsidered the position on vaccination. However, there is nothing mentioned in the Bill, which raises the question as to how he will proceed in that respect. Secondly, on the question of the amendments that the Government have not as yet tabled, we are told that we should wait for the Report stage. Can the Minister say whether or not we shall be able to debate those proposed amendments in Committee, rather than having but one chance to consider them on Report? Obviously, the Committee stage of a Bill gives us the chance to have a debate around the amendments that are laid. Clearly, if they are not brought forward before Report, we shall have a one-go-only situation.
	Thirdly, I turn to compensation. I should like to put on record our thanks to the Minister for the fact that he has acknowledged the position with regard to compensation. When commenting, the Minister touched on insurance and levy systems that I know are under consideration. I believe that the latter would have implications but, again, there is nothing in the Bill in that respect.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I accepted the noble Baroness's amendments it would have the effect of removing compensation issues from the Bill, except for those in the specific clause regarding compensation for vaccinates to which I shall return shortly. It would mean that the whole system of compensation would be delayed until further policy decisions have been taken and further legislation introduced, and would include the wider issues of risk sharing and of possible insurance or levy-based schemes upon which the Government propose to consult at some length with the industry. Therefore, such issues are not appropriate for this Bill. All those matters now fall outside the scope of this legislation.
	I turn to vaccination, which is referred to in the Bill and in some of the amendments. In particular, the powers of entry relate to entry for vaccination and for blood testing, as well as for culling. We will have some culling in any situation; for example, even if we maximise the use of vaccination elsewhere, we will kill the clearly diseased animals. Therefore, even if we fully adopt the recommendations for a vaccinate-to-live process, there will be a mixture of measures. A vaccinate-to-live process is very complicated to introduce as the mainstream choice of weapon to deal with the disease: it requires not only EU backing but there are also implications in the OIE review as regards how vaccinated meat is dealt within the trade.
	Further, we must consider how the domestic meat industry and the retail industry deal with meat from vaccinated animals. Until the position is clear, it is difficult to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peel. The Bill provides for 100 per cent compensation for vaccinated animals where they are slaughtered. If a vaccinate-to-live programme were introduced, it would be largely dependent on the trade being prepared to take vaccinated meat on the same terms as non-vaccinated meat. If the situation were different we would have to consider the noble Earl's question, but we have not yet reached that point. Therefore, it is not covered in the Bill.
	In relation to the issues raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, both of whom sought to delay the Bill, I should point out to the noble Countess that the use of orders would not fulfil the aims of this legislation. Orders can be put forward only within the confines of existing primary legislation. The Animal Health Act does not provide sufficient powers in terms of the scope of vaccination or slaughter and in terms of the scope of the powers of entry to enable us to deal with it through secondly legislation—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but how does he compare this with the TSE 2002 regulations, which constitute an order and give huge scope; indeed, they cover everything, from taking one's computer out of one's home and killing every animal on the farm?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Countess knows, that is a ludicrous interpretation of the TSE regulations. Those regulations stem primarily from European legislation, not primary legislation. Dealing with foot and mouth stems from the Animal Health Act 1981 and, therefore, in terms of orders and secondary legislation, we are confined by the terms of that legislation.
	We have been considering the measures for a long time. We have the wisdom of three important reports, which broadly support the central thesis of the Bill. We have had plenty of comment from the farming industry, scientists, vets and Members of this House on the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures. Some 300 amendments have been tabled, so obviously a number of noble Lords can see ways of improving the Bill, which I hope that we can now go on to debate. I see no further need for delay.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question about whether we could debate fully on Report—as if we were in Committee—the amendments that the Government have not yet put down.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that it is in neither my power nor hers to alter the procedural rules of the House. Report stage will be as normal.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. It is quite possible for the House to move that we can do that. It was done on the peerage Bill. It is called recommitment. Perhaps it might be a good idea to consider that procedure. I would much rather the Government started all over again, because I think that would be quicker and more sensible, but that is another argument.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl is clearly right that a resolution of the House would be required to alter the proceedings. That is a matter to be considered by the usual channels. As of today, Report stage will be as it normally is.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Cox) in the Chair.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"ANNUAL REVIEW OF IMPORT CONTROLS
	In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10—
	"10A ANNUAL REVIEW OF IMPORT CONTROLS
	(1) The Ministers shall prepare a report during each financial year which will—
	(a) review all activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, customs, police authorities and other relevant public agencies directed to the prevention of the introduction of disease into or within England and Wales through the importation of animal products and matter, whether animate or inanimate, and other things;
	(b) identify the nature, origin and quantity of such animal products and matter and stating whether the product or matter was destined for personal or commercial consumption;
	(c) assess the making of any orders under section 10 of this Act;
	(d) assess the effectiveness of any action taken under an order made under section 10 of this Act; and
	(e) propose such further action as may, on the basis of advice given to the Ministers by suitably qualified individuals appointed as scientific advisers to the Ministers, be required to further reduce the risk of disease being imported.
	(2) The Ministers shall lay their report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales at the end of each financial year.""

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: It is a privilege to move this amendment, because of the great concerns that have been expressed by informed people in the agriculture industry, the food industry and the veterinary profession, who regard the provisions on the import of animal meat into this country as wholly unsatisfactory. I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he will accept the amendment.
	We require an annual review of import controls, with Ministers preparing a report during each financial year to review all activities of government departments that are connected with import controls, including the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, Customs and Excise, police authorities and other relevant public agencies directed to the prevention of the introduction of disease into or within England and Wales through the importation of animal products and matter, whether animate or inanimate, and other things. The amendment would bring together all those departments and any annual report produced would be a composite of their findings.
	The report would also identify the nature, origin and quantity of such animal products and matter and state whether the product or matter was destined for personal or commercial consumption. It would assess the making of any order under Section 10 of this Act and the effectiveness of any action taken under such an order. On the basis of advice given to the Ministers by suitably qualified individuals appointed as their scientific advisers, it would also propose such further action as may be required to reduce further the risk of disease being imported. Ministers would lay the report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales at the end of each financial year.
	The amendment is a comprehensive way of tackling the problem of illegal imports. I have heard various estimates of the problem, the highest being that 6 million containers come in through the ports of this country. Another estimate is 1.7 million. There is no doubt that many containers carry illegal imports. We do not have adequate controls. I welcome the fact that sniffer dogs are now being used at Heathrow, but I was rather dismayed to learn that there were only two and that they were the only ones operating in the country. When I entered Australia from New Zealand last winter, my size 12 shoes were removed immediately and I had quite a job getting them back because I had been on farms in New Zealand. New Zealand farms are pretty clear of disease and there is a fairly pristine environment over there. We have nothing like that sort of control.
	We can report on these matters, but the big questions are how effective the measures are going to be and what action will be taken to make import controls of animal products much more effective. On 1st May in the other place, my successor in the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency, Roger Williams MP, introduced a Port Protection Authority Bill, which would establish an authority,
	"to exercise those powers and responsibilities now exercised by port health authorities, trading standards authorities and HM Customs and Excise; to monitor the legality, quality and integrity of imported goods and to collect any duties upon them; and to report annually to Parliament on its effectiveness in carrying out its duties".
	The purpose of that Bill is to strengthen import controls at sea ports and airports by simplifying the structures and making the lines of accountability much more transparent. As I have said, there is a great deal of public concern about the control of imports. Large quantities of drugs, tobacco, alcohol and meat are smuggled into Britain each year. The current system of import control is very complex and involves a number of agencies, including Customs and Excise, which is responsible to the Treasury, trading standards departments, which are local authority functions, and port health authorities, which are local authorities in their own right.
	Trying to monitor imports of animal products into this country is a complex process. The annual report suggested in the amendment would be a considerable move forward. Are the Government actively pursuing the streamlining of those bodies to ensure that we have an effective control system, which could be a super-authority covering all departments addressing illegal imports of food, drugs and other things?
	The amendment is a milestone on the way to that kind of legislation, but we need immediate legislation to ensure that an annual report is produced. It should be the result of careful gathering of information by all the authorities concerned and should result in effective action by the Government against illegal imports of food, which may bring with them foot and mouth disease and other infectious diseases that cause the kind of mayhem that occurred during 2001 with foot and mouth. We never want to see that again. The amendment is an important part of a control to ensure that we do not. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: It may be for the benefit of the Committee if I make it clear that, as has already been said, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Some marginal tidying up may be needed, but I accept the principle of what the noble Lord says.
	The Government are already engaged on the other matters of enforcement of import controls, including looking at the jurisdiction of the various authorities involved. However, that is not a matter for legislation, most of which is European. The requirement here is to report to this House, to another place and to the National Assembly for Wales. We fully accept that.

Lord Monro of Langholm: The Minister should not expect to escape quite as easily as that. However, I am glad that he has agreed to accept the amendment in principle. I declare an interest—as I have many times in foot and mouth debates—as one who was deeply involved and who lost his stock. I feel very personally about some of the issues in the Bill.
	It is quite right that we should have this type of detailed report from the Government each year. Had we had one over the past few years, I am sure that the country would have picked up the fact that the Government's contingency plans were totally inadequate. That, as it turned out, was indeed the fact. The three reports we have had have been a devastating criticism of the Government's handling of the foot and mouth epidemic. It would therefore be useful if the Government annually had an opportunity to show that none of the defects will recur and that they will be much nearer the ball in dealing with any future case of foot and mouth.
	In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rightly pointed out the agriculture industry's grave concern about imports. I have raised the issue on various occasions in the past 18 months, but I have received pretty unsatisfactory replies. Today, the Minister has a chance to give more detail about what the Government have achieved in import control. We keep hearing that there will be more inspectors here and there, but what has happened on the ground? How many cases of illegal import have inspectors discovered? How many prosecutions have we had?
	What is being done to deal with countries such as Argentina and South Africa where foot and mouth is endemic? Are those countries still sending unlimited quantities of beef to this country? As we know, there is currently complete turmoil in Argentina. Are we confident that the government services are operating effectively in the various designated areas which are supposed to be free of foot and mouth? Or is beef being shipped willy-nilly from that country, where foot and mouth is endemic, and are we picking it up in this country?
	I am very concerned that we have not taken adequate steps since the foot and mouth outbreak to prevent the import of all sorts of meat into this country. I think that the majority of the farming community believes that the outbreak began in the Newcastle area from imported meat. Had we had strict controls, with luck, the whole issue of foot and mouth over the past two years would not have arisen. I ask the Minister to tell us now, in detail, the action that he has taken. That is the point of this amendment. It proposes an annual report to set out in detail the action being taken on import controls.
	I should like to raise with the Minister one other important point—liaison between England, Wales and Scotland. Foot and mouth knows no boundaries; it crossed the border thousands of time during the epidemic. The Scottish Executive says it has taken action and introduced legislation and that all is well, and the Government are implying that this Bill will ensure that sufficient resources are available to deal with another outbreak, but I should like to think that there is genuine liaison between England, Scotland and Wales in relation to foot and mouth. I feel that the countries are currently going in slightly different directions and wonder whether, whatever action the Government take to prevent outbreaks, because of devolution and Scotland's legislative independence the link-up between countries is adequate to deal with cross-border problems such as foot and mouth, brucellosis and even scrapie.
	I therefore believe that this amendment, which the Government have accepted in principle, will give them a chance to set out in detail each year the steps that they are taking to raise the standard of foot and mouth prevention in this country. I believe that the Government would have been defeated in the Lobby had they not accepted the amendment. It proposes an important way of ensuring that prevention and contingency planning remain a high priority within the Government. I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in his amendment.

Lord Moran: I very strongly support the amendment; it is absolutely right that we should have an annual review of import controls. I also agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, said. However, I am also struck by the fact that we have raised this issue every time the subject has been discussed, ever since January, and practically nothing has been done. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, pointed out that he has twice recently come into this country but that no one asked or showed him anything in relation to meat imports.
	Some noble Lords may have watched last night's "Panorama" programme about corruption in racing. Time and again during the programme, the representative of the Jockey Club was asked why it had done nothing. He said that the issue was all very difficult and that there was not enough evidence and so on. The comments seemed utterly futile and reminded me very much of the line that the Government have taken about the import of animal meat, which everyone agrees is probably the cause of last year's outbreak. Apart from reporting to the House annually, the Government should deal with this matter firmly and now.

Earl Peel: Like the Minister, who I am absolutely sure has visited many farms and spoken to farmers and representatives of the industry over the summer, I have met my fair share of farmers. If one issue comes out more strongly than any other, it is the import of illegal meat products. I cannot stress powerfully enough how strongly the farming fraternity feels about the need for the Government to take urgent action to curtail this illegal trade.
	The difficulties arise in two channels. The first is the conventional channel where the level of testing is simply not sufficiently rigorous. The second is the import by ordinary passengers in their suitcases of illegal meat products such as bushmeat which commands a very high price on the black market. I am very well aware that the Minister himself is deeply concerned about this issue; I have heard him speak about it on Radio 4 and have read his remarks in the newspapers. Concern and action, however, are two very different things.
	Like my noble friend Lord Monro, I look forward to hearing in some detail the Government's plan to deal with the problem. One of the difficulties is that various agencies have responsibility for dealing with it. Perhaps the Government intend to introduce legislation to establish one agency to deal with it; the Minister may be able to expand on that possibility. I have no doubt, however, that Amendment No. 96 will go some way in helping us to learn what the Government are doing about the issue.
	I suspect that the only way in which the difficulty can really be dealt with is to increase considerably both the level of commitment and the level of investment in personnel and surveillance equipment. Such equipment is already available and being used in Australia and America. Indeed, anyone who has visited America will know only too well how vigilant it is in these matters. Why we cannot emulate such countries, particularly in view of the fact that we are an island, I simply do not know.
	I hope that the Minister will take this matter much more seriously than has so far appeared to be the case. Frankly, we would save ourselves a huge amount of money in future if we got the whole question of illegal importation sorted. The chances of reducing a future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other such disease would be greatly enhanced. I looked forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I say to the Minister how pleased I am that the Government are to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey.
	I have a question about the use of dogs. During the Recess, I heard that two trained dogs would be used in relation to illegal meat. Some time ago, with the Drugs Misuse Group, I visited the hangars at Heathrow to watch dogs working in relation to drugs. The hangars are absolutely vast. Two dogs are just a drop in a tiny ocean. The problem is a huge ocean and at least 200 dogs are needed. In the report, will we be told how the whole thing works and what is being done? As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the import of illegal bushmeat is very worrying. Monkeys, gorillas and all sorts of tropical animals are coming in and being eaten.
	I heard during the previous Session that the veterinary school for tropical diseases in Edinburgh will close. That is absolutely mad. We need it. It could help to provide aid to developing countries. Many of their veterinary officers have died of AIDS and other trained people are needed to replace them. If we really take this matter seriously, we have to consider many ways of preventing disease coming in.

Lord Marlesford: I back up the comments of the noble Baroness.
	The Minister may be aware that I have asked a number of Questions on this subject in recent months. He should be aware of that because he signed a good many of the Answers. In one Answer, he said that enforcement was not a matter for legislation; but—my gosh—it is a matter of concern: deep, deep concern. At the moment, the concern does not begin to be allayed.
	The noble Baroness referred to the issue of two dogs. Let the Minister at least tell us the current and projected strength of the canine defence force of this country.
	One of my Questions was about whether it was possible to discriminate, in terms of investigation and surveillance, at an airport between passengers arriving from different destinations. There are obviously limited resources; we should focus them where they are needed. The Answer that I got was that it was not appropriate to discriminate between passengers coming from different places. Is that really true? None of this gives one any confidence that anything is going to be done or is being done. I totally support the amendment of the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench; of course we support it. However, it is action that is needed, not just words. Frankly, to say that this is not a matter for legislation is not good enough.

Lord Jopling: I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, although at the moment I have no livestock.
	I was very struck by the speech of the right reverend Prelate. I had a similar experience the day before yesterday. I found myself on Saturday in the airport at Atlanta, Georgia. As my wife and I were mooching through the duty free shop, she picked up a sealed package of smoked ham and said to me, "Look, this is that very good smoked ham we had two or three days ago". I was about to say to her, "I hope you're not thinking of taking it back home", but, before I could do so, she said to me, "Oh my God! We should find ourselves on the front page of the newspapers if we took this home". With that in both our minds, when we came back into Gatwick yesterday, I, like the right reverend Prelate, looked very carefully to see what steps were being taken to warn passengers arriving by air that the importation of meat is illegal. At least I believe that it is illegal. I saw absolutely no signs of any sort.
	I very much welcome the Government's announcement. In his Statement, the noble Lord said that he intends to table an amendment providing for the Government to report annually on actions to prevent the illegal import of animal products. We are all grateful for a copy of the Statement, which we have now received.
	I strongly support the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Government might have to tidy up the new clause. We all understand that because careful drafting is needed. When the Government consider doing so, I hope that they will be prepared to add a new provision strengthening paragraph (a). I want a sub-paragraph to be added—I speak in broad terms—that will explain what steps have been taken at airports and seaports, as well as in relation to the Channel Tunnel, to warn people entering this country that it is illegal to import meat, that those doing so will be subject to very heavy fines and that anyone who did not know and who finds himself importing meat illegally should give it up before leaving the airport. That helpful step should be highlighted in the new clause.
	Like other noble Lords, I am most concerned about the fact that the Government have just come round at this late stage—18 months after the outbreak last year—to the fact that something needs to be done about imported meat. We have all been saying for months and months that this is a major hole in our arrangements and that it causes great dangers of a new outbreak. The Government's incompetence in handling the outbreak is not in the past; it is still going on. They are still not addressing that problem sufficiently urgently.
	When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us whether he will amend the new clause to ensure that each year the report will explain exactly what has been done to warn people entering this country of the illegality and folly of their actions if they have illegal meat with them.

Lord Plumb: Before the Minister responds to the many questions and comments, I add my voice to those who have spoken of their concern about this issue. You, Minister, are well aware of the many farmers around this country who have expressed their concern: this matter is their priority. We are concerned that there should not be another outbreak. We are also concerned that regulations should be in place so that, in the event of something happening, we are able to cope with it and the Government are very much in control.
	But are we doing enough on the import front? It is appropriate that this matter should be raised before anything else in the debate, although it is taking a little time. However, it is appropriate that it is raised and that it is raised in this way. It is hoped that imports will appear as the first item in the Bill in terms of what the Government will do by way of control. Therefore, I support the proposal tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for an annual review of the activities of all departments to identify the nature and origin of imported products.
	The Minister said clearly that he accepts the amendment, and we welcome that. Therefore, why are we spending time on it? We are doing so because—this very simple point has just been raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling—we need an answer. I am well aware that some time ago the Minister launched a publicity campaign aimed at raising public awareness of import rules and the reasons for them. What has that achieved? As was said by the right reverend Prelate—other noble Lords have supported his comment and I can, too—it has done absolutely nothing. Among the 10,000 people consulted on what was called "Holiday Watch", only 4 per cent said that they had noticed anything and 96 per cent said that they knew nothing.
	As I came though an airport only last week, I asked what precautions were being taken or what advice was being given to people passing through the airport. The girl looked at me and said, "My dear, it's all over. You don't have to worry any more. Foot and mouth disease has finished". Something far stronger than that type of answer needs to be given to passengers. Surely consumers, producers and taxpayers would feel far better if positive action were taken and if the country were able to see that action was being taken in order effectively to bring about import controls.
	I was not able to take part in the earlier debate but I have seen the report from Europe, as, I am sure, has the Minister. In it he will see that the question of regionalisation is raised, together with the difficulties relating to imports. Undoubtedly he will speak about that now. At the same time, that report contains the toughest measures on import controls that I have yet seen. Therefore, having seen the measures proposed, I hope that the Minister will incorporate them in the final report.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, support all those who have expressed concerns about imports and the lack of controls that exist at present. Over and over again at Question Time, the Minister has been asked what is being done about import controls. He says that we are having meetings with this and that person and with this and that group and that everyone is being consulted. But at the end of the summer, 18 months after the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, all we have is two sniffer dogs.
	When introducing the Bill at Second Reading, the Minister said how urgent and important the Bill was and how badly needed it was. He has—Ministers generally have—the power to stop imports coming into the country. I see the Minister shaking his head, but they do. Section 10 of the Animal Health Act 1981 states:
	"The Ministers may by orders make such provision as they think fit for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spreading of disease into or within Great Britain through the importation of . . . animals and carcases . . . carcases of poultry and eggs; and . . . other things, whether animate or inanimate, by or by means of which it appears to them that any disease might be carried or transmitted".
	The Minister has the powers to make orders to stop people bringing in such items. But what do we have? Two sniffer dogs. And all this talk, talk, talk achieves nothing.
	I wonder whether Ministers have carried out a cost-benefit exercise on providing sniffer dogs and environmental health officers to inspect loads and baggage entering the country and the cost of the last foot and mouth outbreak. The benefits of import preventions and even posters on the walls at airports and ports would be enormous compared with doing nothing except having meetings. Frankly, I am appalled by the lack of action in these circumstances when something could have been done very much sooner.

Lord Whitty: If the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will forgive me—this is his amendment—I believe that I should respond to one or two of the points raised, although I am not sure that many of them are apposite to the content of the Bill.
	The regulation of imports from third countries into this country is governed by European legislation. The Government have recently been very successful in getting the EU—Commissioner Byrne—to agree that the one-kilogram exemption, which currently might have allowed Lady Jopling to bring in her smoked ham, assuming that it was not too large, should effectively be reduced to zero, with a number of exemptions. Nevertheless, the EU has moved very much in the way that we have advocated it should. That is the legislative structure.
	With regard to the enforcement structure, noble Lords are right that more could be done. More has been, and will be, done. There will be additional personnel, and we have initiated a number of pilot schemes. The scheme involving sniffer dogs is a pilot; it is not intended that there should be only two dogs. If it works, clearly the scheme will be extended substantially. A number of spot checks are, and will be, based on far better sharing of intelligence. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that, although we cannot discriminate, we base our spot checks on intelligence.
	There is more that can be done on that front, including in relation to information. Despite the fact that no noble Lord seems to have seen them, a significant number of posters have now been mounted in airports for those entering the country on long-haul flights. Unlike America, the bulk of our passengers arrive from the European Community, and that is a single market. We are now taking steps to ensure that more people are informed both at the point of departure and on the airline. However, in order to be effective in that regard, we require the co-operation of the airlines and airports abroad. We have made a breakthrough on that front.
	As regards the longer-term deployment of resources, we shall shortly receive the outcome of a risk assessment as to how disease might enter this country. That assessment will cover not only the legal and illegal paths of entry into this country but also the question of how disease might enter the food chain thereafter. It is important that Members of the Committee recognise that, however draconian the measures, one cannot be absolutely certain of keeping out diseased or illegal meat. In practice, tonnes and tonnes of illegal meat enter the United States and even Australia. Therefore, we need to combine internal controls with minimising the threat from outside.
	As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others who made this point, there is an overlap of jurisdictions of agencies. We are currently in the process of examining that overlap to see whether some rationalisation and enhancement would be helpful.
	I believe that that deals with the points of regulation enforcement, information and jurisdiction. No doubt Members of the Committee would like to have more details and, once we have received the review of the operation of the various authorities, I shall let noble Lords who have taken part in this debate know the outcome of that review.
	However, today we are debating the issue of an annual report covering all those actions. I believe that paragraph (a) of the new clause proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, covers most of the areas. If it is necessary for it to be more explicit, no doubt we can consider that. But I support the noble Lord's amendment and ask the Committee to do so.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his comments. I know that he takes this matter extremely seriously and has stated so on numerous occasions. We have been calling for far stronger action, and I am grateful for the support shown for the amendment from all quarters of the Committee. There are currently many inadequacies. Some noble Lords have referred to those inadequacies; for example, the lack of dogs for ferreting out illegal imports. More dogs are required. We also need notices at airports and ports and warnings of the consequences for people who illegally import meat foodstuffs into this country, including confiscation at appropriate points. I thank the Government for accepting the amendment. It gives me pleasure to move Amendment No. 96 on the annual review of import controls as part of a new clause before Clause 14.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 14 [The Minister]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 10, line 14, leave out "Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"

Baroness Byford: This is a tidying up amendment. The former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was disbanded in June 2001 and its responsibilities passed to the new department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As we are revising the 1981 Animal Health Act, I believe that we should also update the title of the new department which is responsible for the implications of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: A dissolution order has been approved in draft by both Houses and was presented to Her Majesty in Privy Council on 26th March. Consequently the order received Her Majesty in Council's approval, so the functions of the Minister under the Animal Health Act 1981 were transferred to the Secretary of State on 27th March. An amendment to the Bill has been tabled and follows in the government amendment to delete Clause 14. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: That Her Majesty's present advisers do not know which department is responsible shows how sloppy the Bill is. We all want animal health to be carried out properly, but the whole Bill has not been thought through and it is sloppy and inconsequential. This is not how to conduct legislation. This is a perfect example of why the Bill is wrong. We want animal health to be protected properly and I include the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that because I give him credit for wanting to do the right thing. Surely the Bill must be worded correctly rather than in this sloppy manner. There is a general indication of sloppy thinking—grade four minus, go to the back of the class and wear a dunce's hat!

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is fully entitled to his opinion which he expresses with great force. I defend those who constructed the legislation. I have reported to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the factual position. In view of his long service in the House I am sure that the noble Earl knows that we have followed the appropriate procedure with Her Majesty in Privy Council.

Baroness Byford: I thank my noble friend for his intervention. While I could not possibly comment on it, it reinforces some of our concerns about the Bill. We are struggling to cope with the Bill in its present form. A serious point to take from my noble friend's contribution is that we are asked to give extra powers to this department without any checks or balances, although noble Lords have tabled amendments to ensure that there are some. However, I accept what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have already spoken to the Question whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 negatived.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 98:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"ANNUAL REPORT ON ANIMAL DISEASES
	In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10—
	"10B ANNUAL REPORT ON ANIMAL DISEASES
	The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in each calendar year a report on measures taken by government departments and agencies and other public bodies to prevent the importation into the United Kingdom of the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A.""

Lord Plumb: Amendment No. 98 is similar to Amendment No. 96. I believe that the matter has been fully debated and so it is not my intention to raise additional matters to those already raised and which I hope will be related to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that to a large extent this amendment is subsumed by the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that has just been adopted. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, feels that it is not, perhaps he will contact me before any tidying up is engaged in at a later stage. I believe that the point has already been covered.

Lord Plumb: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 99:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	:TITLE3:"PART A1 CONTROL
	NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES
	In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) the following section is inserted after section 16—
	"16A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES
	Ministers shall make a national plan covering the measures applicable for the eradication and prevention of such specified disease and for addressing related matters—
	(a) subject to an order laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament;
	(b) subject to consultation with statutory appointed individuals, bodies and other organisations;
	(c) subject to a formal review every three years; and
	(d) which comes into immediate effect upon confirmation of a disease.""

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Amendment No. 99 relates to creating a national action plan for infectious diseases in Part A1 on control in the Animal Health Act 1981 which this Bill amends. The clause is inserted after Section 16 which will become Section 16A on a national action plan for infectious diseases.

Lord Carter: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 99 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 100 to 103?

The Countess of Mar: Is the position that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is speaking to all the amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 99, 100, 101 and 103?

Lord Carter: The noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 99 but it is grouped with other amendments, so the discussion now is on Amendments Nos. 99 to 103. I was anxious that we did not discuss each one individually.

The Earl of Onslow: I suggest that we should reappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as Chief Whip so that the proceedings may be better organised. I note that he is nodding with glee. Perhaps that can be appreciated on all sides of the Committee.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I shall now comment on the other amendments and I apologise for not doing so earlier. Amendment No. 100 relates to disease prevention in Part B1 on consultation and inserts the words:
	"following consultation with the relevant local authority or authorities".
	I believe that that is extremely important because we all know that local authorities have a massive part to play in ensuring that a national action plan is effective and that disease is controlled at a local level. I congratulate many local authorities on their activities when they are confronted by such a situation.
	Amendment No. 101 relates to management practices. It states:
	"The Minister shall make orders—
	(a) creating an institute dedicated to the study and analysis of stock management practices."That is important because the management of stock in particular—and certainly in my lifetime—has changed radically. That is one of the findings of the independent reports. It is a good idea to incorporate a best practice and for that to be disseminated among livestock keepers. The encouragement of a health plan for stock, which is arranged with a named private veterinary surgeon, would be a big leap forward in improving practices and in ensuring that we have the situation fully under control, or at least as under control as we can in often difficult circumstances.
	Amendment No. 102 classifies the definition of premises considered at risk of disease, subject to affirmation by Parliament. That is a controversial matter at the time of outbreaks of, for example, foot and mouth disease. I am sure that other Members of the Committee will want to make points on that subject.
	Finally, Amendment No. 103 refers to reports. It seeks insertions into the 1981 Act. It seeks to elicit the number of established veterinary personnel, which is a vexatious problem. We all know that the State Veterinary Service has seen a massive reduction in veterinary personnel. We could argue about whether they have gone sideways into some other activity. However, I should like to congratulate the State Veterinary Service on its excellent work. I believe that more veterinary personnel in strategic positions in the field would be a good improvement. The amendment refers to measures and practices on conduct to eradicate and prevent disease and risk scenarios. There is also reference to a report to Parliament.
	Those are my comments on these amendments. I note that Amendment No. 103A is being taken separately. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: This group of amendments covers a number of issues. Most would be covered in the Government's commitment to produce and lay before Parliament a contingency plan, which would deal with issues of a risk assessment of the kind of disease control mechanisms that are required of the structure of the veterinary service, and so on.
	I have indicated in my Statement and in my letter to Members of the Committee that I propose to bring forward an amendment relating to contingency planning. Most of these issues could be dealt with in that context. The noble Lord will no doubt be disappointed that, although I say it can be laid before Parliament, my amendment is unlikely to include the affirmative procedure. Nevertheless, perhaps we should discuss that when we have my amendment before us. If we took each amendment separately there would be some difficulty with each. But the requirements and how far we want parliamentary involvement in a contingency plan, which is covered by the next amendment of the noble Baroness, are best dealt with at a later stage. No doubt Members of the Committee will want to comment both on these and other amendments. I therefore ask for the Committee's indulgence and ask it to consider them at that stage.

The Countess of Mar: While the noble Lord is considering matters to bring forward on Report, perhaps I may ask him to bear this point in mind. A number of private vets are contracted to DEFRA for specific purposes—for TB, brucellosis testing and that kind of thing, and in the markets for inspecting animals. When I first started in farming I remember that our vet used regularly to carry out a whole farm assessment for us. With the narrowing of profits in farming such assessments have dropped off. In particular, large animal vets have noticed the fall in their incomes because farmers are no longer employing them to carry out such assessments. I recognise the importance of having a vet on one's property to look at one's animals periodically. Can the Minister consider how this practice might be reconstituted in some way or another?

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: Can the Minister confirm where his contingency plan will appear in the Bill? The shape of this piece of legislation is important. It is quite offensive as it stands because Clause 1 immediately goes into slaughter. We recognise that there will be cases where action has to be taken. The Bill would be more user-friendly and more likely to be welcomed by the farming community if this kind of action in extreme circumstances were set in the context of an overall plan which comes first. Therefore, can the noble Lord tell us where he expects to put his contingency plan and whether there should be some kind of pre-amble before we get to the detail of killing animals or—I hope—vaccinating rather than killing them? My concern is how the Bill is presented and the priority with which these matters are addressed. Can the Minister give us some reassurance about that?

Lord Plumb: Before we have the reassurance, I share equally the views of the right reverend Prelate: I do not know where this will fit into the Bill. I was pleased with the Minister's comment that this is something that we ought to take into account, to consider and to think of.
	I turn to Amendment No. 101, the proposed new clause on management. I fully understand what it says. It states:
	"The Minister shall make orders——
	(a) creating an institute dedicated to the study and analysis of stock management practices". That is fine. However, we have more consultants in this country now than we have farmers. We can set up another institute, but who will be on it, how will it advise farmers, and what kind of recognition will the farmers give to that advice? There are ways and means—perhaps this again is a matter that we should discuss outside the Bill—that can help and perhaps improve the relationship with the veterinary practice. We recognise that those involved with large animals are becoming fewer in number. In that sense I believe that it is a question of finding ways and means of improving the relationship between all parties.

The Earl of Onslow: I wish to raise another point on this issue. I declare an interest as I have quite a few sheep. We had one or two which were turning their toes up in the air. So the vet had to come out. The vet's bill was about £250. The value of a sheep in the market at the moment is about £45 to £50. So the economics of getting veterinary assistance to farm animals is very different from what it was even 10 or 20 years ago. That matter should be borne in mind. The vets buy Mercedes and the farmers go bust.

Lord Whitty: In relation to veterinary surveillance, there are recommendations in the Royal Society report which lead us to assess the situation as regards the State Veterinary Service and relations with the private veterinary service. The response to those reports will deal with that issue. It is not really a matter of legislation.
	The commitment to produce a clause dealing with contingency planning will not go into full details because a contingency plan is necessarily a living document and one which will feed on experience around the world in dealing with animal diseases, and foot and mouth in particular. But the commitment will be to ensure that we do draw up a contingency plan and that it is laid before Parliament. As to where that will be, to answer the question posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, it will be pretty early in the Bill, because it will deal with many other issues in the Bill. When the Committee reads the amendment, it will find that it is prior to any of the more contentious issues with which we have been dealing today.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Before I withdraw the amendment, I should like to respond to one or two of the Minister's remarks. I point out that the contingency plan available resulted from the 1967 foot and mouth disease outbreak, but applies to all such diseases. It appeared at the beginning of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak that the only source of information was the excellent Northumberland report, which came to conclusions. Where that fitted into the Government's contingency plan to deal with the disease was not clear, and there are many lessons to be learned. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will address the point, but everyone should know what procedures are contained in the national contingency plan and exactly what is the plan, so that from the first minute of the known outbreak of an infectious disease, we can pursue that course of action as fast as possible. Indeed, we can then measure how effective we have been in tackling such an outbreak. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is right to ask where that will feature in the Bill and in what order. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say that it will appear early on. That is right; we need to know exactly where we are.
	I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb said about relationships and instituting best practice. When I lectured in agricultural colleges, we always tried to let students know what was best practice. I believe that there is a much more effective system for disseminating information in the Scottish colleges. The advisory service in Scotland adjoins, and is a part of, the colleges and there seems to be a better communication system there to farmers on the ground, now that ADAS has become rather expensive for some smaller farmers. That whole area needs to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is right to say that that requires considerable discussion outside the Bill.
	So, given the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that he will table his own contingency plan amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 103A:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	:TITLE3:"PART C1
	:TITLE3:STRATEGY
	STRATEGY FOR CONTROLLING ANIMAL DISEASES
	Before section 15 of the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) there is inserted—
	"14A STRATEGY
	(1) The Minister may produce a strategy for controlling the incidence of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A in the United Kingdom.
	(2) The strategy shall include—
	(a) a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A;
	(b) the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A;
	(c) the incorporation of the steps identified in paragraph (b) into a contingency plan for each disease;
	(d) the publication of each contingency plan;
	(e) the annual testing of each contingency plan and the publication within six months of a critique of the outcome of the tests;
	(f) the implementation of the relevant contingency plan upon the outbreak of any disease;
	(g) the monitoring of the implementation of each contingency plan;
	(h) the reporting, within four months of the official notification of the end of any disease outbreak, of the successes, failures, strengths and weaknesses of the control process and of the method of implementation.
	(3) The Minister may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes—
	(a) for the emergency control of any disease listed in Schedule 2A in any animal species; and
	(b) for the permanent control of all such diseases in animals in particular circumstances.
	(4) The Minister may fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in Schedule 2A experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992, as between species and within each one according to the circumstances of the affected animals.
	(5) The Minister may collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A.""

Baroness Byford: This amendment has been tabled because I, too, share the thoughts expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. To me, to start straight into a Bill with a part entitled, "Slaughter" and nothing else seemed foolhardy and unwise in the first instance.
	My amendment is lengthy. There is no way that the Government will accept it, although the Minister said that the Government will propose a contingency plan, for which I am grateful. I tried in framing the amendment to reflect certain important matters that the Government may take on board and build on in later amendments. It attempts to incorporate two items identified as important by all three foot and mouth reports: namely, the National Audit Office, the Royal Society and the Anderson reports.
	The first plank of the strategy covers contingency planning, where the first priority is to maintain a watching brief on the incidence of exotic diseases. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke of her concern about the closure of the part of Edinburgh University that deals with that. Perhaps when he replies the Minister can tell us more about the plans for that university. More than one comment has been made to the effect that had more attention been paid to the pan-Asian "O" strain of the foot and mouth virus, the UK would have been better prepared. In his report, on pages 42 to 45, Anderson presents maps and commentary on the progress of that strain. On page 44, the Royal Society uses maps to make the spread of that virus leap off the page at any reader. The Royal Society also sounded a serious alarm on page 29, in sections 360 to 367, about the northward spread of bluetongue and African horse sickness. Let us not say in future that the Government were not warned.
	A watching brief is no good without an alert for those likely to be affected. There follows a plan of action in which local knowledge is key—all reports reflect that. Knowing what lies ahead and how to fight it, we must then make the contingency plans public and regularly test them to ensure that they continue to be workable. In his response to earlier discussion, the Minister said that he concurs with that. Local authorities' emergency services could produce a book on factors that have disrupted their regular incident simulation: for example, closed roads, buildings in the middle of previously open spaces, diversions of public services and even the removal of telephone boxes have all in their own way caused little hiccoughs. It is no use running simulations or similar tests if there is no thorough review of what went wrong and right and why. That should be followed up by recommendations for improvements.
	Once the need arises, contingency plans must be actioned, their implementation monitored and their performance analysed. We are anxious that that analysis should cover performance in the front line and back at base; it must consider all departments, agencies and public and private bodies and individuals concerned. The recent foot and mouth outbreak served only to highlight how many different departments, people, and organisations are involved in coping with an outbreak.
	The second plank of any strategy must be vaccination-about which we spoke at length earlier. On pages 87 to 111—a lot of pages—the Royal Society has a great deal to say on that matter and makes four recommendations. In brief, it says that emergency vaccination should be seen as a major tool of first resort, along with the culling of infected premises and known dangerous contacts. We have already spoken about that and agree with it. The report states that, for controlling foot and mouth outbreaks, the policy should be vaccinate to live. That is where we may have moved on since we met and discussed the matter in March.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Onslow was specific in wanting the question of vaccination raised at a much higher level. But, if I may say so, we were then struggling with the fact that there was no answer to the question of what happened to vaccinated animals: would they go into the food chain and would compensation be available? It made vaccination difficult at that stage, but from our earlier comments, I think we have moved on, and I hope that in his response the Minister will pick up on that progress. If he can give the House a further indication of the Government's thinking, that will be welcome.
	The policy of "vaccinate to live" necessitates the acceptance that meat and meat products from all vaccinated animals should be able to enter the food chain normally. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there is no reason why that suggestion of the Royal Society should not be accepted, and that no one has raised that as an issue.
	Anderson also devotes a whole chapter—pages 120 to 129—to vaccination. He recommends that the Government ensure that the option of vaccination forms part of any future strategy for the control of foot and mouth disease. In his response to our earlier discussions, the Minister indicated that the Government accepted that. The fact that he is nodding his head reinforces that.
	Following the production of the EU report into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, Commissioner Byrne said, on 12th September, that,
	"the Commission is of the view that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism in the event of future outbreaks".
	Any strategy should cover emergency control, but we should also consider special groups of animals for whom permanent control may be indicated—for example, animals in zoos or wildlife parks, or rare breeds. We touched on that matter in earlier debates. However, I would like the Minister to include a comment about it when he responds.
	Since the end of the outbreak, there has been a rash of informed comment on apparent peculiar behaviour patterns. Letters to the Veterinary Record in June and July referred to the possibility that ewes on the point of giving birth and whole flocks immediately after gathering and colostral vaccination are more easily and more seriously affected by foot and mouth disease. On page 20 of its report, the Royal Society makes an interesting and—possibly—highly important comment. It says:
	"Infectivity is not readily destroyed by ultraviolet radiation but is particularly vulnerable to acid conditions below pH 6 and alkaline conditions above pH 10. Whereas infectivity might be stable for a few weeks under neutral conditions (pH 7), it survives for only two minutes in a slightly acidic pH 6 environment".
	I am no scientist, and I find all that a little challenging. However, the Royal Society has made a suggestion, and the Minister should comment on it in his response. Our amendment is an attempt to ensure that government support for such future investigations continues.
	We also consider that vaccination for the permanent control of some—if not all—of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A may become a practical necessity if the spread of those diseases continues. For instance, if African horse sickness were to become endemic, the horse-racing industry might need protection, along with animals involved in eventing, showjumping and dressage.
	The amendment is wide-ranging. I do not expect the Government to accept it as it stands. However, having tabled it in September without knowing what the Government's thinking was, I hope that the Minister will highlight some of the suggestions in our list from (a) to (h) and indicate which they might consider including in their contingency plan, which we await.
	As the Opposition, we do not have the facility to draft major legislation. However, we feel that the principles behind the amendment are important, and we hope that the Government will take them on board before the Bill becomes an Act. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow: The quotation about the "sinner that repenteth" springs immediately to mind. I must congratulate the Government on coming round to the concept of vaccination. I wish only that they had listened to someone who took five O-levels—I failed history—in 1954 and learnt a fraction of science, which he did not even bother to take at O-level. The money spent on selling Mrs Messenger's cottage so that I could be sent to Eton was almost totally wasted. If I was able to come to the conclusion that I did, which was no great intellectual achievement, surely the clever-clogs in the department and the Government should have been able to reach it too. Other people, much cleverer than I, advocated vaccination. Vaccination was being practised, but, to go back to biblical analogy, there was a certain amount of passing by on the other side.
	I shall continue the biblical analogy by saying that we must forgive sinners who repent, and I shall go on to a slightly more difficult problem. The European Commission demanded that a contingency plan should be drawn up to deal with foot and mouth disease: it would appear that that was not done. The Government were warned that type O was rampaging all over the place and that that was likely to happen here too. However many plans we produce, however many strategies we contrive, however many plots we cook up to make sure that certain things do not happen, nothing will make up for the fact that people have not paid attention to what happened. Plans lie in drawers and gather dust.
	Every report on foot and mouth disease has been preceded by the words "If only we had paid attention". The report of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and the Duke of Northumberland is, I believe, preceded by such a statement. If we do not keep our eye on the ball, it will not matter what is on the statute book. Unless people pay attention to what is happening, things will go on getting worse. Thank goodness we are now considering vaccination. We will never again slaughter God knows how many animals in a blind, ignorant, witchcraft-driven policy.
	The more I see of the amendments to the Bill, the more I want to say to the Minister that he should take the Bill away and come back with a proper one next time. I see that he is looking uncomfortable: so he should. He is now grinning because he does not want to admit that he is uncomfortable. We want a proper Bill. I say that to help the Government, not to cause them difficulties. We want the things that my noble friend Lady Byford said were necessary. We want some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, mentioned. The Government admit that we want them, but they are all over the place. The changes will come in on Report and at Third Reading but, because the Bill will have been half-chewed in this House, it will have to go back to another place, where they will not have time to do what is needed. That is a crazy way to legislate.
	The Government must be big enough to say, "We have made a mistake, and we want to do it better. Our aim is the same as yours, and some of us think that there are better ways of achieving it".

The Countess of Mar: I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, explaining why she wanted the amendment. As she went through each point, I thought, "I do that already". As a food producer, I am required to have a system of hazard assessment and critical control points. I must account for everything that I do in my cheese making. That is precisely what the noble Baroness is asking the Government to do. It is a good idea. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, he should seriously consider tabling a more refined one. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated on tabling her amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I also support the amendment or something very like it. I hope that the Government will propose a preamble to the Bill that covers the same ground.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, might have been firmer in her proposals. I would like subsection (3) to say:
	"The Minister shall investigate and"—
	perhaps—
	"may recommend and implement".
	Subsection (5) should say:
	"The Minister shall collate research".
	It must be done and should not remain optional. It is essential that we put it in terms stronger than those in the amendment. There is still time for the Minister to incorporate them in his contingency plan or in the preamble to the Bill and I hope that he will do so.
	While I, from this Bench, welcome repentant sinners, I am not sure that the noble Earl is right in believing that this particular repentance could have taken place in 1954. I suspect that only this summer has it become clear that it is possible to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals. That is the critical difference, so it is a last-minute repentance and we cannot blame the Government for not having repented sooner.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a well-informed debate and I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Hereford that the provision requires more force. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on a well-researched amendment. It is very detailed and it needs to be in order to be effective. Emergency vaccination is important and where possible the animals should live.
	I commend in particular the noble Baroness's remarks about local knowledge. It is vital. In 2001, I was greatly distressed by the fact that local knowledge was completely overridden. People who knew a great deal about their locality—about how much livestock were here, there and everywhere else—were not consulted. That included myself and I forced myself on to the scene at one point because I was so distressed about what was happening. Local knowledge is vital and the proposals in the amendment and the strategy are to be commended. If the amendment is not acceptable to the Minister, it has provided a great deal of food for thought. If necessary, perhaps he can produce an equally detailed amendment covering the same points but drafted differently.

Lord Carter: I want to make two brief points. I do not have the Anderson report in front of me, but I am sure that it mentioned vaccination and that the science is still uncertain and unclear. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee about the latest state of the scientific play as regards vaccination. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that to embark on a vaccination policy before the science is clear might be as dangerous as the previous situation—

The Earl of Onslow: I believe that the Anderson report refers to the situation in Uruguay where there was a similar outbreak. They vaccinated and slaughtered only 10,000 cattle. It started earlier and ended earlier and they vaccinated to slaughter. The science of vaccination is sound and has been applied for the past few years. Although I do not have chapter and verse in front of me, I am pretty certain that that is what Anderson stated.

Lord Carter: That could well be so, but from memory I am certain that the executive summary of the Anderson report states that the science is still unclear—or words to that effect.
	Furthermore, the vaccination-to-live provision is already contained in the Bill. Clause 4(2) states:
	"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".
	"Shall" cause to be slaughtered is vaccination-to-kill, but the Minister "may" cause to be slaughtered; in other words, he can do so or not. Therefore, the power to vaccinate-to-live already exists.

Lord Jopling: I share the implied view of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and would be reluctant to accept the vaccination strategy until the science is clear. I have always been dissuaded from embracing the concept of vaccination until I am sure that it is clear and my recollection is similar to that of the noble Lord's.
	For the second time today, I was struck by the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who was not in his place when I spoke earlier. Previously today he dazzled us with his scholastic knowledge of Greek and he has dazzled us again with his infinite good sense. As I said to the Chamber previously, it is a pity that he did not become the Archbishop of Canterbury.
	I turn to the points in the proposed new clause which deal with contingency plans for the stated diseases. Perhaps I may detain the Committee for a few moments by speaking of contingency plans through the eyes of one who between 15 and 19 years ago had the honour of being responsible for them. I want to repeat what I said to the House about 18 months ago.
	When I was responsible for such plans, there were three or more scares—I forget precisely—that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease was suspected in the country. Happily, on each occasion it was a false alarm. However, I remember asking officials on each occasion whether they were absolutely sure that in the event of a scare becoming a reality the department was utterly prepared with a contingency plan which followed in close terms the report of the Northumberland committee of 1967. On each occasion, I asked officials to review whether the plan was ready to go if the worst happened. On each occasion, I was told, "Yes, we have looked into it and the contingency plan is ready to move into action". I am sure that that was right and I have no reason to suppose that it was not.
	However, there is no doubt that in the intervening 16 years eyes went off the ball. The proposed new clause suggests that the contingency plan for each disease should be identified; that the plan should be published; and that there should be annual testing of the plan. Looking back, 15 to 19 years ago, I must tell the Committee that I wish I had insisted on something similar. I asked the question which needed to be asked and received the answer which I badly wanted to hear. However, it would have been better if we had had an obligation to publish contingency plans for the diseases and to have an annual testing of them. I do not believe that it would have taken enormous resources within the department and it would have been clearly proved.
	Like other Members of the Committee, I hope that if the Minister is unable to accept the new clause—my noble friend suggested that she would not be surprised if that were so—he will try to write into the Bill provisions which in the same terms will deal with contingency plans. The old phrase that time spent on reconnaissance is rarely wasted is extremely appropriate in this case.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness recognised that the amendment is wide and touches on many aspects of disease control, prevention and intelligence, many of which are not really appropriate for legislation but are clearly appropriate in the consideration of the reports and the outcome of the way in which the disease was handled last time.
	I am proposing that we put within the Bill—this is the amendment I shall bring forward on Report—a commitment to contingency planning. However, contingency planning is not as wide as the clause. Contingency planning concerns how we should deal with a disease if it were it to break out. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, my predecessor departments had contingency plans; indeed, there was a contingency plan for foot and mouth and other diseases. However, it is clear from our experience of foot and mouth disease that we need to upgrade them very significantly and to broaden the range of possible outbreaks from a relatively small number, which was covered by a quite detailed contingency plan, to a situation where—as actually happened—60 or so cases occur before we discover the disease. The foot and mouth disease contingency plan we shall produce, and which I wish to see reflected in the Bill, would be a template for contingency plans for other diseases of the kinds referred to by the noble Baroness. So the contingency planning part of that, in process terms at least, would be in the Bill under my amendment.
	It would not, however, deal with all the issues of substance referred to by the noble Baroness and many other Members of the Committee. The issue of vaccination is not appropriate for legislation in terms of it being absolutely definitive that we would adopt a vaccination strategy rather than a culling strategy. That proposition is not in any of the reports or in the expected report from Europe. Clearly a very substantial amount of culling will be involved. I do not think that anyone is indicating that we should not cull diseased animals. Very few are suggesting that we do not cull obvious direct contacts with those animals. Where vaccination comes in is as a pre-emptive fire-break or control mechanism whereby we control the spread of the disease beyond those animals identified as diseased or subjected to the disease.

The Earl of Onslow: The Minister raises a very valid point. Will he inquire of the Uruguayan authorities how they did it, what they did and when they did it? One does not want to be clever, but they succeeded and it would seem a sensible idea to go and look at how people design things that work and to learn from them.

Lord Whitty: I do not disagree with that. The Uruguayan vaccination campaign to control foot and mouth was confined to cattle. The disease that we experienced in the UK was spread almost entirely by sheep and sheep movements. Obviously there are sheep in Uruguay, but the Uruguayans did not include the vaccination of sheep—which is, of course, much more difficult, particularly with our topography—in their campaign. They were successful in dealing with the outbreak by vaccinating cattle because the disease at that point was still only in cattle and therefore only a relatively small number of diseased animals and those close to them had to be destroyed.
	However, we cannot immediately transfer that experience to the British outbreak or any potential future European outbreak. The vaccination science and vaccination operations are not as clear cut as some of the comments made in the debate would suggest. Indeed, as Anderson said, in moving more substantially to vaccination there are hurdles to overcome and the science is not clear, as my noble friend Lord Carter said. Quite apart from that, many farmers and other operators have extreme doubts about adopting the vaccination strategy.
	However, we accept the view of the Royal Society and Anderson, and the putative view of the European committee, that we should be prepared to consider vaccination as part of the immediate strategy rather than as a last resort strategy. However, there is no analogue of any control of the disease which is exactly equivalent, or anywhere close to equivalent, of the sheep-carried disease which we dealt with in this country.
	There are also the operational difficulties to which I referred in my remarks to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, during a previous intervention. There are issues as to whether vaccinated meat would be acceptable to the trade, both domestically and internationally.

The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister confirm that at the moment we are importing vaccinated meat into this country and that it is being sold? If that is the case, the scare as to whether people will eat vaccinated meat vanishes in a puff of wind. The Minister is being briefed, so he had better listen.

Lord Whitty: Vaccinated meat which is legally imported into this country has to be subjected to heat treatment. Therefore, that is not the same as saying that all meat can go into the food chain on the same terms. It is not quite the equivalent, although it is certainly true that vaccinated meat is being eaten by British consumers. Vaccination of poultry and other animals is quite frequent. I do not believe British consumers entirely understand that, but nevertheless it is the case. However, imported vaccinated meat would be treated before it could go into our food chain.
	I make this diversion because some of the issues are too complex and strategic to be reflected in a fairly narrow Bill. If my suggested amendment on Report is accepted, there will be a requirement on the Government to take these matters into consideration in their contingency plan and to lay that contingency plan before Parliament.
	That is as far as I can go on this amendment. I cannot accept it as it stands. I understand what the noble Baroness is driving at but I do not think that it is appropriate for this legislation. I hope that the assurances I have given on the issues that have been raised will be accepted by the noble Baroness. As the issue of vaccination will no doubt be returned to at subsequent stages of the debate, I hope that people will understand exactly what is being said and how the Government are dealing with the recommendations of the various inquiries in relation to vaccination.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I find that answer slightly disappointing. In moving the amendment my noble friend made it clear that she did not think there was the slightest chance of the Government accepting the amendment. Even with her persuasiveness and charm she was unable to move the immovable object opposite her. I had hoped—I do not think it is unreasonable—that in the circumstances that the government amendments are not ready now, the Minister should take advantage of the situation by saying that at least some of the points raised by my noble friend would be incorporated in those amendments. Clearly in their state of unreadiness there is home in them for such good sense.
	I particularly mention two points to which the Minister did not refer—that is, the three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A and the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease. Both points are important and I should like to hear something about the Government's intentions in regard to them.
	I was rather surprised that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford should allow his optimism to overleap his good nature and say that the Bill had some prospects of ever being made user friendly. That is going far too far beyond the boundaries of reality. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, whose opinions I greatly respect and to a large extent share, will not be so unrealistic in the future.
	Before I sit down I should like to say a word about my noble friend Lord Jopling, whom I have known for many years. When I had the misfortune of being the shadow agriculture Minister, he had the misfortune of helping me to avoid mistakes. One does not often see former Ministers going out of their way to express regret and sorrow at not taking a certain sensible course of action. Tonight, my noble friend clearly said how sorry he was that even though he had the good sense to ask whether there was an adequate contingency plan, he accepted an assurance that there was without asking to take a look at it and having it published. I am sure that was a pity.
	My final point to the Minister is on the vexed issue of meat imports. They cause great irritation and if on top of that they are a source of danger, that would be absolutely intolerable.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I live in hope, perhaps unrealistically, that the Bill will be ever be user friendly. I detect a degree of convergence. I wonder whether we can lean on the Minister. If there is no prospect in the immediate future of a broader Bill offering many of the provisions that the Committee would like to see, I suggest that it should include a preamble that includes some kind of strategy. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is headed "Strategy". A strategic prospect is needed, so that people know what the Bill is attempting to do in the context of an overall strategy that is reasonably convincing. Then we can spell out in detail how we shall deal with disease, if and when it breaks out.
	I suspect that the Minister is not quite right. I believe that the indications are that the European Union report will be more positive about vaccination than the noble Lord allowed. It may even be the case that science has moved on since Anderson was doing his work. I press the point that if there is time for a further amendment on Report, it could include an element of strategic description. That would be enormously helpful.

The Countess of Mar: The noble Baroness's strategy is also good discipline. It makes one sit down and look at each issue step by step. What is the hazard? The hazard is this disease. What are the critical control points? Airports? Farmers being sloppy? Vets carrying illnesses from one farm to another? How is one to control them? Then there should be a report at the end. That is something which I do every day. I am used to it and can recommend it. Even if it comes at the beginning of the contingency plan, that would help. It would bring everything into a framework. I earnestly ask the Minister to think about it much more seriously than he has indicated that he might do.

Lord Prior: I have come to the debate rather late, for which I apologise. I want only to twist one or two tails.
	I can just imagine the scene around the table when this amendment was being discussed with Ministers. I can hear the civil servants saying, "Minister, this is very dangerous stuff. This will lead us into all sorts of difficulties and a lot of unnecessary work". Sir Humphrey would say, "Minister, I think that we had better turn it down".
	Actually it is a sensible course to pursue. If there were proper discipline, as the noble Countess said, we would overcome a lot of our problems. Not only that—we would create a lot more confidence than there is at present. I beg the Minister to think again, not take the advice of his civil servants. They are far too conservative and far too keen on these occasions—I have great admiration for civil servants on many occasions—to say, "This is going to create a tremendous amount of work and would be an absolute minefield. Minister, please turn it down". I hope that the noble Lord will not listen to them.

Lord Carter: I will just point out to the noble Lord that I spent 10 years as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman on agriculture. I cannot remember how many times that I moved amendments asking a Conservative Government to report to Parliament, produce plans or whatever. Almost invariably, those amendments were turned down. With this Bill, we have already seen the acceptance of an amendment covering reporting on imports and a commitment to producing a contingency plan. The noble Lord was just a little unfair.

Lord Prior: I do not think that our party was any better when in office—and I do not suppose that when I was a Minister all those years ago, I was any better. All we are trying to do is improve the situation.

Earl Peel: If the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was so keen on the idea when he sat on this side of the Chamber, presumably he still retains that view. He should be welcoming my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Carter: There is to be an annual report on imports and a contingency plan. As a member of the Opposition, I asked for both for 10 years.

Baroness Byford: I will jump in before the Minister does so. I follow the thinking of my noble friend Lord Peel—that as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pushed for such measures, surely he must support them. I hope also that when we were in power, we never introduced such a rotten Bill, which highlights the practical difficulties. I thank the Government for acknowledging that there are difficulties and for being willing to do as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said.
	I am grateful for the support of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She copes with risk assessment in her everyday life. She regards it as essential and I certainly do. My noble friend Lord Onslow commented about contingency plans and vaccination policy. According to the European report, things have moved on since Anderson took his views—although people such as Fred Brown were pushing for vaccination, saying that tests were available, and held their ground strongly. That is another argument and perhaps we shall reach it later.
	I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He said that I was not being strong enough. Perhaps that is because I had been through his beautiful city, which I had never visited before. The amendment was put together 1,200 feet up in the Brecon Beacons, thinking what could we do to introduce some kind of strategy in the form of an amendment. We share the same concerns at the right reverend Prelate. I once described this measure as the Animal Death Bill, which I still think it will be if we are not careful, and said that we were going straight to slaughter. We walked and sat among the sheep, trying to think of ways of tempting the Government to attempt that which my noble friend Lord Jopling thinks impossible and which my noble friend Lord Prior says that we should do anyway.
	I watched the civil servants in the Box—although perhaps that is something to which I should not refer—thinking "No, Minister" and quietly smiled to myself. But perhaps that is unparliamentary. If it is, I apologise.
	I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. As to the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he is right that science is not clear and about what Anderson said. I have the book with me but could not find the right page. The EU report to which we have referred many times this afternoon comments at paragraph 47:
	"The Commission failed to review the Member States' contingency plans within an appropriate period following the introduction of the ban on prophylactic vaccination in 1992. At the time of the 2001 crisis it had still not reviewed the contingency plans of the UK, the Netherlands or France".
	As to vaccination, the report states at paragraph 51:
	"Experts attending the hearings held by the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on FMD were not agreed amongst themselves"—
	that is one of the problems referred to in our debate earlier today—
	"as to the appropriateness of vaccinations to stem an outbreak or eradicate the disease, from the point of view, inter alia, of veterinary medicine or in the light of the epidemiological considerations. However, many of the experts stressed that, under certain conditions, emergency vaccination is a better way of controlling FMD than the 'stamping out' method. The issue of vaccination needs to be resolved in the context of the particular situation. It must also be seen in the light of the seriousness of the risk of future FMD outbreaks due to the particular control method adopted".
	Suggestions are made in the document which I hope noble Lords will accept.
	I turn finally to paragraph 54—which relates to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Carter:
	"The vaccines currently available make it possible—at least on a herd by herd basis—to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. It is true that the problem of transmission of FMD by carrier animals (animals in which the virus can under certain circumstances still be detected more than 28 days after infection but which may possibly not be producing any antibodies to non-structural proteins or displaying clinical symptoms) still remains in principle and is not quantifiable so far".
	So the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right in his thinking on that point.
	"However, many experts consider the risk of transmission of FMD by carrier animals to be extremely slight".
	I hope that my quotations from the working document may help to fill in some of the gaps and explain why I believe that matters have moved on since we discussed this matter previously. Yes, I have heard what other noble Lords have said either in support or in terms of expressing some slight concern on the question of vaccination.
	On the question of meat entering this country from countries where foot and mouth is endemic, perhaps the Minister will clarify one point. I was not aware that the meat had to be heat treated, but I was aware that it had to be de-boned. The Minister almost implied that it had to be heat treated, and was heat treated, but I do not believe that it is. Again, I look for guidance on that point.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for his support on some of these points. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the suggestions in the amendment. I had it in mind, if I did not receive an encouraging response to my amendment, to put the matter to a vote this evening. However, because of the discussion on all sides of the Chamber, I would rather wait to see what the Government have to say and give them a chance to return to the matter on Report. My noble friend says that I am "very kind". I could take Members of the Committee through the Lobby now—and lose heavily, I fear. I hope that, knowing that I had intended to press the amendment to a vote, the Minister will realise how seriously I view the matter. I hope that he will respond to a couple of my queries before I withdraw it.

Lord Whitty: I was attempting to clarify the situation in regard to meat imported from areas where there has been foot and mouth. The noble Baroness is right to say that it has to be de-boned. But there are also some stipulations in relation to its being heat treated in certain circumstances. In a sense, I put it the wrong way round. The principal qualification is that it should be de-boned; heat treatment is a supplementary qualification in some circumstances.
	I appreciate the importance that the noble Baroness places on this matter. There is a difficulty in the way in which we deal with legislation as regards what the right reverend Prelate suggests should be a "preamble". We do not normally legislate in terms of preambles or strategies; we legislate in terms of powers and duties. The duty here is clearly on the Minister to produce a contingency plan which meets many of the objectives that lie behind the noble Baroness's amendment. To promise to go further than that in the direction of her amendment would not be appropriate. That is why I have had to take the attitude that I have.

The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may return to the importation of vaccinated meat. I believe—I am open to correction; I seriously seek knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment—that we still import considerable amounts of meat from Uruguay and the Argentine. I suspect that in those countries foot and mouth is endemic. I know that the Argentines make enormous use of vaccination. Are we not importing any meat, off the bone, raw or frozen, which is then sold. The term "heat treated" is used. Does that meat have to be cooked? I refer, for example, to meat used in pork pies and other such products. I know that the Committee would like to know the answer to this important question. It would clarify the general information.

The Countess of Mar: While the Minister is waiting for a reply from his officials, is it not the case that meat from a dead animal goes through a phase where it becomes fairly highly acid—in other words, it goes below 6 pH—and at this point any foot and mouth virus within it will normally be killed. The only parts of a dead animal where foot and mouth has been found to survive are the lymph glands and the bone marrow. The treatment required is often a matter of making sure that the meat is allowed to become acid before it is chilled, so it is kept at room temperature for a while so that the normal biological effects take place.

Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Countess is right on that point. That is why we refer to a combination of de-boning and treatment. The meat is not required to be cooked.
	The noble Earl is correct to say that we import from both Uruguay and Argentina. In Argentina, following the last outbreak of foot and mouth there, they have reverted to a process of what is effectively pre-emptive vaccination. Therefore, virtually all meat from Argentina has to be subject to those controls. There are other parts of the world where foot and mouth is endemic. Some regions have been excluded from exporting to Europe while others have retained that ability—South Africa being one and Botswana another. In those cases we are not talking about foot and mouth being currently endemic in the regions from which the meat is imported. I do not know whether that helps to clarify the position for the noble Earl. If there are greater complications, I had better write to him.

The Earl of Onslow: It would be most helpful if the Minister could provide detailed information. We should all like to have such information.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I think he understands the feeling of the Committee that there may be a way for the Government to find a suitable amendment that will at least meet us halfway, although I shall not hold him to any promise—he stated clearly that he would not make such a promise. I am grateful to him. The matter is of great concern to us all. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 [Foot-and-mouth disease]:

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
	""(c) only those animals which the Minister believes, on the public advice of the chief veterinary officer, should be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.""

Lord Plumb: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may be permitted to make a comment on the last point made by the Minister. He kindly wrote to me in answer to a question that I raised some time ago. I asked for the figure for imports from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. The figure that he gave is written on my heart. It was 108,339 tonnes, during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, coming from six countries that I know well, including Uruguay, where foot and mouth disease is endemic. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. The answer can be found there, although it may have been updated.
	This amendment is very much related to Anderson recommendation number 38 on page 99, if anyone wishes to check it. The amendment would leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert the words proposed.
	The wording in the 1981 Act was only one stage less emphatic than that proposed by the Minister. In 1981 it was seen as practical and workable. The Minister now tells us that it was found to be inadequate. The interpretation of the 1981 Act was at the root of most of the considerable aggravation which occurred during the outbreak of foot and mouth. Nowadays people are looking for greater explanation than hitherto.
	The amendment therefore recommends suggestion number 38 in the Anderson report, but it is a little more specific as to when we should look for the well-informed veterinary and scientific advice. That advice, of course, has to be from those who fully understand the situation. That is important and it needs to be published with the reasons for using the preventive slaughter powers. There is much talk about slaughter. God forbid that there should be any further outbreak, but we hope that further slaughter would be kept to the absolute minimum because it is quite obvious that we are going to move towards some form of vaccination.
	We also believe that the advice should come from someone who is a recognised authority on foot and mouth disease. During the last outbreak it was clear that the veterinary profession was occasionally in disagreement with the statisticians or whoever it might be. There were differences of opinion on so many issues. Therefore, it is a matter of concern that we get our act together in future so that that can be avoided.
	Amendment No. 105 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 110. Amendment No. 107 is an effort to ensure that owners have a chance to share in what the Minister thinks or has reason to believe. The idea that a Minister and all his officers and employees can act on what they think is becoming increasingly unacceptable in the present day.
	Amendment No. 109 is a subsidiary amendment to Amendment No. 104. The amendment is worded to cater for the Government rejecting the previous amendment. It is an effort to define a little more clearly the scope of the thinking that the Minister should employ and to remove any sense that decisions can be arrived at arbitrarily. The importance of this amendment is to stress the need for focused reasons for action in situations of stress, anxiety or emergency. It is all too easy to adopt a blanket approach. The danger is that the thinking process stops in such circumstances.
	Amendment No. 113 relates to the current notice of slaughter, not including the reasons, and page 1, line 10, of the Bill. The suggested amendment follows on from Amendment No. 104 where the Minister is being given advice by the Chief Veterinary Officer. With this amendment in place it should ensure that the information is shared by those most affected. Those are my amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 105 to 111 inclusive.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I start by expressing my warm agreement with almost everything that my noble friend said. After all, it is my habit to agree always with the Front Bench and with the greatest respect. I believe that I have done so consistently today.
	I always find that there is something objectionable in the phrase "As the Minister thinks" in any Bill by any government. I am not suggesting for a moment that Ministers do not think from time to time, but I at least ask the Government to take note of the possibility that every now and again Ministers do not think all that deeply or, alternatively, that they get it wrong. I find there is something offensive in the suggestion that because a Minister thinks something, action should follow accordingly. I do not accept that point of view.
	In fact, I prefer my noble friend's amendment to the one I have tabled, but mine has the virtue of simplicity, brevity and of being easily understood. In this context and in this arena I realise that, far from those being virtues, they are cardinal defects and give my amendment absolutely no chance of being accepted by the noble Lord opposite.

The Countess of Mar: I love to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, speaking. He is so good and so blunt in what he says. I heartily concur with what he has said: let us have facts instead of beliefs and thoughts. That is the only point I have about Amendment No. 104 which states,
	"only those animals which the Minister believes, on the public advice of the chief veterinary officer".
	Those words are absolutely fine. My Amendment No. 110 is incorporated in Amendment No. 104 so I am quite happy.

Lord Greaves: This is an interesting group of amendments which, on the face of it, are about different kinds of things. But they are all based on a basic unease at the bare statement that the Minister can do whatever he thinks is right. The amendments are all attempts either to define the basis on which the Minister or the Secretary of State should think, the basis of the information which he should look at before he thinks, or the way in which he has to communicate the reasons for his thoughts.
	My noble friend and I have Amendments Nos. 108 and 112 in this group. The first is very much along the same lines as the amendment tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which she has just spoken to. We are suggesting that the Minister should think on the basis of an evaluation of a formal, written risk assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified veterinary inspector.
	Our second amendment is an attempt to include a failsafe mechanism based on the suggestion that two people should be involved in the decision rather than one. That is a different argument, but it tackles the basic problem in the Bill. There is a great fear that arbitrary decisions will be taken on the basis of inadequate consideration by too few people. Whether we are talking about the Chief Veterinary Officer being consulted, as the Conservative amendment suggests; whether the owner should be consulted; whether it is a question of defining the basis on which the Minister should think, as in Amendment No. 109; whether it is a local veterinary assessment, as the noble Countess and ourselves suggest; whether it is the suggestion that the reasons have to be provided in writing by the Minister or there should be a double lock built in as regards the number of people who make the decisions, are all evidence of the widespread concern which exists at the very simplistic and direct approach that is being taken in this Bill to what can be quite horrific decisions, as we are aware, for individual farmers, not to mention the individual animals.
	All these amendments are designed to probe the basis upon which the Minister will "think". We shall listen with great interest to the Minister's explanation of how he will think. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seems to believe that he will not think at all, but I am sure that he will do so. The Minister may say that some of these matters are covered in other parts of the Bill; indeed, that is the case with one or two of them. However, as other Members of the Committee have said, there is grave disquiet about the phrase, "the Minister thinks". It would, therefore, be helpful if the Government could find a different way to express this in the Bill, as well as incorporating some of the safeguards suggested by the amendments.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has been lulled by the beauty of the Brecon Beacons into an unduly charitable way of expressing the matter. However, I suspect that we need the phrase "good reason to believe". I follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in believing that it is better to talk about a "suitably qualified veterinary inspector" than the Chief Veterinary Officer who will clearly have to devolve any decision to a local expert in each case. Indeed, the Chief Veterinary Officer will not be dashing around the country like a maniac to investigate every possible case. Clearly, in practice, this will have to be devolved to someone in the local area. We need to emphasise the importance of there being "good reason" for such a life-and-death decision being made.

Earl Peel: I think that I support the principles behind the amendment. The effective control of disease must clearly be the principal objective of both the Minister and his officials, while at the same time minimising slaughter wherever possible. As I said earlier, there seems to be one major defect in the Bill; namely, that if and when—I am still not sure whether we have reached that point—an effective means of detection is put in place, it seems essential that it must be implemented before slaughter takes place. Surely that is the only fair way to deal with the situation. It would give everyone in the industry that much more confidence if it were obligatory for such tests to be put in place.
	I am not entirely sure that the amendment before the Committee would actually go some way towards delivering that aim. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to advise me in that respect. However, if it would go some way towards achieving that objective, I should certainly welcome it. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view as to whether or not he thinks it would be appropriate to have an amendment in the Bill that would trigger the use of any technique that is able to detect disease quickly and effectively without deterring the Minister and his department in their ability to slaughter when it is thought necessary to do so.

Lord Whitty: The trouble with these amendments is that they attempt to pin down the decision in relation to a specific case in terms that really relate to the overall slaughter strategy. The expectation that the broad strategy should be explained is clearly reasonable. It follows, therefore, that the Minister's thinking should be based on a rational, reasonable, and proportionate broad strategy. That is why I have indicated my intention to bring forward an amendment that will commit the Government to provide an explanation of why the wider slaughter powers are necessary. This would specify the area, the disease, the species, and the circumstances in which such powers would be used. That is different from the implication that in every case we would have to provide in writing the reasons for slaughtering a particular batch of animals.
	If Members of the Committee think about it, the latter is not a practical proposition when one is trying to contain the spread of the disease. Indeed, in primary confirmation of the disease, it is possible that some of the available technology will enable us to move more cautiously than has previously been the case. Once the disease has occurred, we need to move as rapidly as possible. I do not believe that such constraints on rapid action would be appropriate.
	As to the question of whether or not the Minister "thinks", I should point out to the Committee that this terminology derives from the Animal Health Act 1981. We are not giving the Minister any more powers; we are simply changing the criteria upon which he should base those powers. In terms of the general powers, we are requiring him to give a clear explanation. We are not actually inventing a new ability for the Minister to "think" or to use his subjective judgment—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want the Minister to be quite clear in his mind about what I am trying to say. I should just add that any precedent—the fact that something has been done before—is no possible excuse. It may be some sort of palliation, but it could never be an excuse.

Lord Whitty: Much of the Bill consists of amendments to a previous Act and, therefore, uses some of its terminology. But we are both tightening and constraining the range within which the Minister can, if you like, "think", as well as requiring him to make transparent and clear the reasons for his thinking in this way. It seems to me to be a positive move, even if it does not go all the way towards deleting the words "the Minister thinks", which would lead to other consequential amendments.
	A number of the other points raised by way of these amendments will also be met largely by the requirement that I intend to bring forward; namely, that the Minister would be required to explain the basis of the general strategy to slaughter if that were the road that we intended to take. Taken severally, I do not believe that the amendments would help the circumstances. Amendment No. 112 would require two people to be involved in the decision. Again, once the general policy is clear, someone will have to take a decision on its implementation at the local level.
	Some of the other amendments would clarify the way in which such a decision could be queried, but it seems to me that a requirement for two people to be formally involved in taking an individual decision when the disease is rampant would slow down our ability to deal with the disease. The whole thrust of the legislation is to speed up the process of dealing with the disease and thereby avoid the unnecessary culling of animals. Indeed, that might cut across the process in certain circumstances.
	Although I accept that a degree of transparency is required and that it is incumbent upon the Minister to provide for that in the Bill, as regards the overall justification for the slaughter strategy I do not believe that further constraints on individual decisions would be appropriate.

Lord Plumb: I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all those Members of the Committee who spoke to this group of amendments. As I said earlier, the latter were based on the Anderson report. It is a question of clarifying some of the issues that are of concern to many people who lost their stock during the previous outbreak. They are confused: there was misunderstanding between the various sections of people who were involved. Therefore, the amendments were tabled in an effort to bring about some clearer thinking and some clarification on some of the issues that arose.
	As ever, my noble friend Lord Peyton makes us all "think", and the Minister has thought about the amendments. I hope that that thinking will bring about at least a report, or reference, to the issues that have been raised. There needs to be some clarification. In those circumstances, I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for his support of the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 1, line 9, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124, 133, 139, 145, 150, 152, 155, 158, 162-163, 165, 168, 170, 172-173, 175, 177, 179, 181, 186-188, 191, 193, 200, 203, 298 and 300.
	I have gone through the list properly in consideration of the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, with regard to things being done properly. These technical amendments reflect the recent transfer of functions order whereby the Secretary of State will carry out functions previously fulfilled by the Minister. As a result, we need to amend the provisions relating to scrapie and foot and mouth disease, and other provisions, so that the relevant powers will be transferred to the Secretary of State.
	I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not in his place. He referred to sinners repenting. I hoped that he would be able to withdraw his unwarranted attack on the officials who drafted the legislation. As the noble Earl knows only too well, and as noble Lords are aware, officials can draft legislation only in the light of the factual and legal position at the time. Because of the timing of the Bill and the delay involved, the officials, when they drafted the legislation, quite properly referred to the position before the transfer of functions order. These amendments are the first occasion on which the Government can put the matter right. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 107 to 110 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
	"but, notwithstanding the power in section 87 of this Act to amend the definition of "animals" by order, no animals shall be slaughtered by virtue of this paragraph which are not susceptible to infection of foot-and-mouth disease."

Baroness Byford: I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 114, 117 and 115.
	Amendment No. 111 is designed to restrict the number of animals that must be slaughtered. The amendment states that,
	"no animals shall be slaughtered by virtue of this paragraph which are not susceptible to infection of foot-and-mouth disease".
	I am sure that Members of the Committee will have been lobbied as I have. The NFU, in particular, supports the amendment. It is designed to limit the Minister's powers to slaughter animals that are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. There has been concern that by the use of ministerial orders under the 1981 Act, these powers could extend to animals such as farm horses and dogs. When the issue was raised with Mr Morley in another place, he said that the Government did not intend to apply the slaughter power to non-susceptible animals. There is, therefore, no reason why the Government should not agree to the amendment. If the Government agree not to kill animals that are not susceptible, it seems logical that this amendment should be made to the Bill. I am not sure why the Government did not wish to accept the amendment moved by my colleagues in the other place.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 114. During the 2001 outbreak, there was great emphasis on isolation and biosecurity. Farmers, farm workers, members of farming families, vets, milk-tanker drivers, postmen and election canvassers were all asked, "Is your journey necessary?". As a result, contractors ran out of work, routine animal inspection ceased, and children either stayed on the farm and missed school or attended school and stayed with friends. Biosecurity in the shape of foot baths, wheel washers and vehicle valeting was, rightly, introduced everywhere. Either these measures are effective or they are not. If they are, animals that are kept indoors, away from other animals or from anyone who has had contact with other animals, and that are subject to stringent biosecurity regimes, should be protected from slaughter, unless or until one of their number succumbs to foot and mouth disease.
	Taking Amendments Nos. 115 and 117 together, we contend that no democratic legislature should ever allow for the destruction of people's livelihoods without crystal-clear reason. Subsection (3) is part of Clause 1, "Foot-and-mouth disease", which is contained in Part 1, entitled "Slaughter". To make a qualification by conferring, under this part of the Bill, the right to slaughter unaffected and non-suspect animals that have not had contact with the disease is unfair, unreasonable and, to a certain extent, unparliamentary—I will come stronger, as the right reverend Prelate tells me I must.
	In another place, at the first sitting on the Committee stage, Mr Morley criticised the 1981 Act for providing opportunities for all sorts of legal challenges. Founded on a variety of reasons, only some of which were reasonable, these challenges delayed the contiguous cull. The Minister added:
	"The Bill makes it absolutely clear what the Government may choose to do on the basis of veterinary and scientific advice".
	That may be Mr Morley's understanding of the Government's intentions—indeed, he stated it in another place—but it is not the intention with regard to the implementation of the Bill. Such an intention is certainly not reflected in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will state why the Minister suggested in another place that that was his understanding, despite the fact that it did not appear on the face of the Bill.
	Page 1, line 9, refers to
	"any animals the Minister thinks should be slaughtered".
	Page 2, line 2, states that,
	"The Minister may by order amend Schedule 3".
	Page 2, line 32, contains the words:
	"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered".
	No reference is made to veterinary or scientific advice. I wish to make clear that what is being said in the other place is not reflected in what we are being asked to do here. My purpose, particularly in Amendment No. 115, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to clarify the Government's intentions.
	Moreover, there is a presumption in Mr Morley's statement that the contiguous cull was right and proper, and that anything that impeded it was wrong and improper. After the three major reports—the National Audit Office report, the Royal Society report and the Anderson report—we all know that the contiguous cull was not axiomatically right and proper. Page 97 of the Anderson report states that in Scotland,
	"a decision was taken to apply the contiguous culling policy pragmatically and only . . . at the edge of the epidemic zone . . . These policies worked well".
	The National Audit Office report considered on page 4:
	"The implications of the vaccination could have been more fully considered".
	At page 117, the Royal Society report said:
	"The detailed exploration of the most appropriate culling strategies for particular circumstances is a vital research area, which should begin forthwith".
	In addition, the European Parliament's report of 16th September 2002 raises no fewer than 12 points on vaccination. Does the Minister accept the comment in point 50, which I think I quoted earlier, that the decision on vaccination is not always a scientific matter, but a political one? If so, what is the Government's response to point 57, which says that emergency vaccination, with the aim of allowing animals to live, must be considered as a first choice option from the onset of the outbreak?
	These are important issues. Amendment No. 117 would leave out "immaterial whether or not" and insert "material that". Amendment No. 115 would leave out "it is immaterial" and insert,
	"the chief veterinary officer shall only advise the destruction of animals"
	when his advice has been taken into account.
	This is slightly confusing because we have already gone round the circle on previous amendments, but I beg to move Amendment No. 111.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Although I normally support my noble friend with enthusiasm and salute the charm with which she speaks to amendments, on this occasion I think she has got things a little wrong. It is surely unreasonable of her, on this day of all days, with the experience of the past three or four hours to guide her, to expect that the Minister will clarify the Government's intentions. That would be asking him to exercise miraculous powers, which he does not have. The Bill has proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the Government's intentions are immune to clarification, even by such a genius as the Minister on the Front Bench.
	My Amendment No. 116 is distressingly simple and for that reason is bound to fail. No one would dispute that the fact that animals are affected with foot and mouth disease or are suspected of being so affected is a material fact. Nor would anybody doubt that the fact that animals have been in contact with others so affected is also a material fact. The same applies to those that have been exposed to infection or treated with vaccine against foot and mouth disease. These are all clearly relevant material facts. The Bill says that it does not matter whether they are material.
	That heightens my concern about the level and quality of the Minister's thinking, which is referred to in paragraph (c) inserted by subsection (2). I hope that the Minister will attempt to clarify this extraordinary situation in which the Government are suggesting that, at the stroke of a pen, Parliament can make material facts immaterial, or at least can decide that it does not matter whether they are material.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Subsection (2) inserts:
	"any animals the Minister thinks should be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease".
	That raises some key issues. Amendment No. 111 is particularly important, because it exposes the vexatious issue of the contiguous cull, which caused enormous problems in 2001. I spent a fortnight trying to protect a herd of British Friesians, which are becoming increasingly rare. They were inside a property, not out on the farm, and there was a contiguous cull on the neighbouring farm. We can all quote examples of that. After a fortnight the herd was slaughtered. That was a loss of a considerable gene pool, because, as most of us know, the Canadian Holstein has become the main black and white cow in this country now. The issue caused no end of angst in my former constituency, where people could not understand clearly why they were being told that their flocks or herds had to be slaughtered. I have to concede that in the Brecon Beacons, where animals were on the open hill and 18,500 were slaughtered, there was perhaps a case for doing such a thing, although it caused a great deal of distress at the time.
	It is extremely important to have accurate assessment. I know the problems. There is very little time in which to make the assessments and come to material conclusions. The amendments begin to clarify the circumstances in which we could perhaps avoid the unnecessary slaughter of animals without contributing to the spread of the disease. I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that. We have the possibility of ring vaccination coming up. That will help to overcome some of the acute difficulties and may help to solve the problem in the future. I shall not talk about general vaccination, because that raises a lot of difficulties relating to consumption and exports, but in the longer term—and perhaps even in the shorter term—ring vaccination will help to overcome the problem.
	The issue that we are confronting is very important. Psychologically, the farming community in the areas affected is still suffering from it. People have still not come to terms with having to have their animals slaughtered. We are talking about the reasons and what we can do to improve matters. I therefore support the amendments.

Lord Monro of Langholm: As one who was involved in the contiguous cull, I think it important to clarify the procedures when a cull is likely to take place. The amendments would help to do that. With a foot and mouth epidemic all around, one could contemplate that a contiguous cull within the three kilometre limit was a possibility, but when it comes it comes swiftly. On the Friday the veterinary officer and my vet came to see the stock and agreed that they were all healthy, but were within the mileage limit. On Saturday there was the valuation and the setting up of the pens for slaughter and on Easter Sunday came the slaughter. One does not have much breathing space to consider whether there is a reason to object to the cull. In any case, when there is a huge epidemic in the area it would be very wrong for any farmers to try to stand out against the cull if it was in the interests of the majority to get on with it.
	However, a number of cases, particularly in the hefted hill flocks, ended up in court cases in Edinburgh. They needed clarification, because the chance of a hill ewe crossing a boundary, which never really happens with a hefted flock, was so remote that most people thought that the hefted hill flock cull was going a step too far.
	What my noble friend has suggested would clarify how and when the cull should take place—and whether it should take place at all. That will help the farming industry if we have another outbreak of foot and mouth, although I hope we do not.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I think that it is generally recognised by everyone who has reflected on what happened last year that we could never again contemplate culling on the scale that took place. It is just intolerable and unacceptable that we could consider such things. I believe that the following phrase in line 12 of the Bill goes to the heart of what is found most objectionable about the Bill in its original form. The Bill states that,
	"it is immaterial whether or not".
	Such phraseology has a kind of indiscriminate arrogance about it which I believe is extremely offensive.
	It is preposterous to suggest that paragraph (d) can stand in relation to that phraseology, so that it would be immaterial whether or not animals have been vaccinated. It cannot possibly be immaterial whether or not they have been vaccinated, particularly as all noble Lords are agreed, I think, that we are moving towards a much wider and much more intelligent use of vaccination.
	This particular phrase must be changed. I do not mind by which method it is changed or by whose amendment it is changed. To say that "it is immaterial" is not something that can remain in the Bill. I urge the Minister to accept that this must be changed in some way.

Lord Carter: The use of the phrase is intended in law to restrict the particular meaning and to ensure that if there are animals outside these four categories—for example, in a firebreak cull—they could still be slaughtered. I am not sure that the phrase has all the meaning that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, have given it. I believe that it is there for legal reasons which I am sure that the Minister will explain.
	I have two very brief points on Amendment No. 114, which is this business about,
	"animals . . . which have been kept indoors constantly since the day before the first announcement by any government department of an outbreak".
	We should remind ourselves that the outbreak was in the country for about a month, we think, before it was recognised and announced. Animals that were outside during the time that the disease was in the country, although we did not know it, and moved indoors on the day before the outbreak would still have been susceptible. I therefore think that there is a fatal weakness in the drafting.
	The one redeeming feature of the FMD outbreak, as bad as it was, was that it did not spread to any extent to the pig population. If it had done, the results would have been very serious indeed. Almost all pigs are kept indoors.

The Countess of Mar: What these amendments indicate is the need for rapid testing, which I gather is now well on the way. I hope that the Minister will agree that once we have rapid testing, we will not need this clause in the Bill either. This is another reason for delaying the Bill until we know exactly what is happening. Rapid testing was well on the way when Fred Brown was here; it just had not been audited and authenticated by various departments in either this country or the EU. I ask the Minister to consider whether a government amendment would be appropriate in this case.

Baroness Strange: I support Amendment No. 111 because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, pointed out, the provision might cover dogs and horses which could never get foot and mouth because they do not have cloven hooves. Will the Minister table an amendment to clarify the position, so that no dogs and no horses are killed in this way?

Lord Whitty: I think that this debate is driven by two misunderstandings, one of which relates to the terms of the current legislation, in relation to which I think I can provide some comfort to noble Lords. The other misunderstanding relates to the intent of the Bill. Given some of the more recent remarks, I think that I will not be able to provide such comfort on that point.
	As the Bill stands, the new powers of slaughter could not be used to slaughter non-susceptible animals. The reference to "animals" in the Bill is dependent on the definition in the Animal Health Act 1981, which states that only ruminants and swine can be slaughtered for the purposes of the control of foot and mouth disease. Consequently, all these scares about the susceptibility to slaughter of dogs, horses and even budgerigars and canaries—which have not been mentioned today—

Baroness Thornton: What about goldfish?

Lord Whitty: Yes, one might even include goldfish. None of these would fall within the definition of "animal", as repeated in this Bill, in the Animal Health Act 1981. I therefore think that I can lay to rest those concerns. The Act would have to be amended to change that definition, and Ministers have no intention of doing so.
	As for the other point, I thought that it was clear that part of the Bill's intention, which was very strongly supported by the Anderson inquiry, is to extend the circumstances in which slaughter may be carried out to include preventive culling. "Pre-emptive culling" is the term that Anderson uses. This clause is designed to do that. I know that some commentators, and perhaps some noble Lords, will not like that, but it is a central intent of the Bill and is strongly supported by both Anderson and the Royal Society.
	People are concerned about this clause and the "immaterial" provision because, hitherto, before they could be slaughtered, we would have had to prove that animals fell within the categories outlined in the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and others have drawn attention. In other words, the animals would have to be diseased, exposed to the disease or reasonably expected to be exposed to the disease. If, however, we provided a new power that extends the scope to pre-emptive culls as required by Anderson, one would have to say that the above constraint could be overridden when a pre-emptive cull is being undertaken. Those who oppose that provision oppose a basic tenet of the Bill and a basic strand of the thinking of both of the main inquiries into the matter.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thought that vaccination was going to be used for that purpose.

Lord Whitty: The proposition particularly from the Royal Society but also to some extent from Anderson and the Europeans is that the vaccination option should be considered as a first resort, but not as a replacement for all culling and not necessarily as an absolute priority. As I said in speaking to a previous amendment, there will have to be some culling provisions in relation to both diseased and exposed animals. In some circumstances there will have to be a firebreak cull, and in other circumstances there will have to be a firebreak vaccination. We hope to vaccinate to live rather than to vaccinate to kill, as was previously being contemplated.
	As it is pre-emptive, the vaccination proposal—not in this clause but in the equivalent provision—also requires the powers of entry provided for in the Bill. Hitherto, everything has been based not on pre-emptive or preventive culling and vaccination but on the proposition that animals are or might be exposed to the disease. As I explained earlier—I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was in the Chamber at the time—it is wrong to think that the recommendations which the Government have accepted on taking a much more positive line on vaccination replace the need for culling diseased and exposed animals or, in some circumstances, for culling for pre-emptive purposes.
	This clause very explicitly expresses the recommendation of the Anderson inquiry to clarify the powers in this respect. Indeed, that is one of Anderson's most powerful recommendations. As I said, those who oppose the provision would go against Anderson's recommendation. I would therefore not be prepared to accept amendments along those lines.
	I also do not think that the suggested exemption for animals kept indoors would be appropriate. I think that it is inappropriate not only because of the detailed reason spelled out by my noble friend Lord Carter, but because an animal could still be a carrier of the disease or exposed to the disease although it had been indoors for much longer than the incubation period. I therefore believe that we must have the ability to slaughter animals that are kept indoors to restrict the spread of the disease.
	As I said, I do not think that the earlier concerns expressed most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, are valid. The concerns about preventive culling are valid. However, if the Committee were to go along those lines, it would be very much flying in the face of the recommendations of both of the main inquiries. I therefore hope that the Committee will not pursue that.

The Countess of Mar: Will the noble Lord kindly address the question that I raised about the rapid diagnostic tests? They would probably eliminate the need for the clause altogether, because we would be able to diagnose very quickly whether animals were infected.

Lord Whitty: No. Not all advances in relation to the diagnostic tests have been fully validated but there is an advance which, we hope, will identify diseased animals and determine whether exposed animals were actually subject to the disease. However, it would not provide the basis on which one would carry out a pre-emptive cull. A pre-emptive cull, by definition, does not require us to be able to prove that an animal had the disease. That is precisely the firebreak or wall strategy that Anderson said should be more clearly available to us in legislation but which is not present in the current legislation. We are increasing the scope—I make no bones about that—but we do so in line with what the report suggests.

The Countess of Mar: I am trying to say that a pre-emptive cull would not be necessary if we had a rapid diagnostic test. One would be able to test every animal to find out whether it was infected. There would be no need to go round culling all over the place.

Lord Whitty: That might reduce the requirement but when large-scale movements of sheep on hills are concerned, for instance, there is no way in which we would be able to carry out diagnostic tests in the way the noble Countess suggests. That would in some circumstances restrict the need for a pre-emptive cull but in other circumstances—in which the disease was virtually out of control and we needed to build a barrier to its spread—a pre-emptive cull would be the obvious weapon for us to use. The problem (and the reason why Anderson suggested that we needed to make this explicit in the legislation) is that at times there was an argument about whether the contiguous cull was always justified in terms of exposure. Sometimes the contiguous cull's primary purpose was preventive. That is where Anderson's reference to ambiguity in the current legislation applies. I do not believe that it is quite as ambiguous as he indicated, but he firmly said that we need to clarify that there is a right to engage in preventive culling.

The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord clarify what we know about diagnostic equipment? So far as I can gather, that equipment was developed in relation to germ warfare. It involves the method whereby someone—or a sheep or cow—breathes on to something, whereupon a computer recognises whether a virus is in the air that is breathed. The test is instantaneous. When that was suggested earlier during the outbreak, people said, "Oh, it has not been tested under field conditions". No one then said, "What a smashing time to test this instrument, when there is a major foot and mouth outbreak", although it could have been extremely useful. These diagnostic tests came as a result of germ warfare.
	Moreover, I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware—or even whether I am 100 per cent correct—that at the outbreak of the Gulf War, there was a panic about diagnosing disease-borne attack—

The Countess of Mar: I believe that the noble Earl means to refer to anthrax.

The Earl of Onslow: Yes, anthrax. A portable machine was designed and built at Porton Down—it was used in the Gulf and was diagnostically efficient—within three weeks. Those machines work, and we must consider them. The moment at which one can diagnose quickly and easily, one can use such machines. It is no good the noble Lord saying, "We cannot diagnose sheep". Yes we can. One herds them into a pen and one makes them breathe into something, or one puts a bullet in their head. That is the same thing.

Baroness Wilcox: Not quite!

The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend says, "Not quite", but it involves the same amount of effort.
	Will the noble Lord and his department please look more carefully at such diagnostic instruments?

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I do not want to return to the diagnostic test although I am sure that important steps could be taken in that direction. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says about animals being kept indoors—they may have been exposed previously and the disease may be present but not detected.
	I do not believe that the Minister understood the force of what I was trying to say: perhaps I am the only Member of the Committee who feels this way. There is a disagreement between us about whether a pre-emptive cull and a pre-emptive vaccination are equally valid policies; I do not believe that they are. I hope that we are moving towards a policy of normally using pre-emptive vaccination, with pre-emptive culling being used in exceptional circumstances. The phraseology should cover that. The cavalier use of the word "immaterial" conveys entirely the wrong impression, which will be greatly resented in the farming community.
	We must find a way to express the fact that there may yet be exceptional circumstances in which it is still necessary to cull animals in such categories but not in relation to paragraph (d), because if vaccination works, we will certainly not cull animals that are covered by that provision. It is the tone of voice that desperately needs to be altered. I hope that the Minister will say that he understands that and will do something to change the provision's phrasing. There may be occasional—exceptional—circumstances in which pre-emptive culling is necessary of uninfected and unsuspected animals. However, we need to say that in a way that reassures people, rather than make people feel as if they are being hit over the head with a blunderbuss of a policy that can be applied absolutely indiscriminately anywhere and to any animal.

Baroness Mallalieu: I support the comments of the right reverend Prelate; he conveys exactly my feelings.
	Listening to the way in which the Minister responded to this group of amendments, I became profoundly depressed. It seems to me that we are learning nothing from all that occurred last year. It is absolutely crucial to get away from the situation that one farmer described to me: he said that for the first time he understood what Shakespeare meant by the "insolence of office". We are providing powers to do more of the same, although that went wrong. I appreciate that the Minister said that he needs such powers and that he has not got them. However, the circumstances in which they could conceivably be used in future, after all that has happened, must be very limited indeed. We should look beyond simply trying to take powers to justify what went wrong last time and look at ways of avoiding ever having to use them again in such a way.

Baroness Byford: I intervene in view of the last three contributions. I am sure that the Committee has the necessary resolve. We are very concerned about the use of the word "immaterial"; we want to have "material" in the legislation because there are material facts that should be taken into consideration. Perhaps I should give the Minister another chance before deciding what to do with the amendments.

Lord Whitty: If the right reverend Prelate or the noble Baroness can find a word that means the same as "immaterial" without wrecking the Bill, I might consider it. However, that is not what is being proposed. The whole point of using the term "immaterial" is that it is no longer necessary, in relation to animals that fall under the four categories, for us to engage in a policy of pre-emptive culling, as was firmly recommended by the Anderson inquiry. Changing the word "immaterial" to "material" would have exactly the opposite effect. That is why this is a wrecking amendment; it would wreck not only the Government's intention but also the very firm recommendations of the inquiries.
	I turn to the point of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. Clearly, because we have taken on board the recommendations about being more positive about using vaccination as a strategy, we hope that the number of occasions on which a pre-emptive cull was proven to be necessary would be limited. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude the possibility—for logistical reasons or because the disease was running out of control—that we may need to engage in a pre-emptive cull. Nor can we ignore the firm recommendation of the inquiries that we need to clarify the law to that effect. If the Committee wishes to pursue this amendment, it must recognise that it does so in the face of the recommendation of the inquiries, which the House has hitherto said are the main reasons for delaying progress on the Bill. Therefore, I would not recommend the Committee to go down that road. If it were to do so, far from meeting the concerns of the farming community, I believe it would be acting seriously against its interests.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not believe that I made the point very well in my previous remarks on my amendment. The noble Lord must avoid letting the law look plainly silly, which it would do if he continued to make the statement that obviously material facts shall cease to be material. That is a real "sillyness" and it must be taken out of the Bill.

Lord Carter: Perhaps my noble friend would agree that the wording means that, in applying sub-paragraph (1)(c), the application shall not be restricted to the four cases listed below. That is all that it means.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Then why not say so?

The Earl of Onslow: The wording actually says that we can go and kill anything whenever we want to, however we wish, simply because we believe that we should. The use of the word "immaterial" means that that is exactly what one can do. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. It is the arrogance of power and it is very unattractive. It does not matter whether it comes from our side, the opposite side or the Liberals in 1909. It is still arrogance of power, which is unattractive.

Lord Whitty: I cannot conceive that the proposed sub-paragraph bears the interpretation that the noble Earl has just put on it. As my noble friend Lord Carter said, it is intended to say that the categories of animals will not be confined to the previous considerations. If Members of the Committee wish to use a different word from "immaterial" and wish to come forward with an amendment on Report, I shall obviously be prepared to consider it. However, I am not prepared to consider allowing on to the statute book a measure which entirely reverses the intention of the clause and the intention of the inquiry.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to hear what the Minister has just said.

Earl Peel: I return to a point that I raised earlier. I tried to explain to the Minister my hope that somewhere in the Bill the Government would make a commitment that, if effective diagnostic tests were in existence, there would be a statutory obligation on those making the decisions to use those tests before they decided to go ahead with the pre-emptive power. Is that or is that not a possibility? If the Minister could give us an assurance along that line, I believe that Members of the Committee would be far happier.

Lord Whitty: I have already made two commitments. One was that there would be a published slaughter protocol; the other was that the Secretary of State would have to make clear the reasons for the general strategy in terms of disease control. Both would be public documents, and neither was required during the outbreak of the disease last year. Therefore, with those commitments we should make a considerable advance in terms of transparency.
	If the diagnostic tools were universally accepted, one would expect that to feature in a disease protocol. Although substantial advances have been made, there is also an international dimension to this issue in terms of tests which are internationally validated, both in this context and also in the context to which the noble Earl referred earlier distinguishing between vaccinated and diseased animals. However, if the tests were to be totally validated, I should expect that to be reflected in the disease protocol. We have not quite reached that point yet, but it will obviously be a consideration when we draw up the protocol.

The Countess of Mar: I am very much at heart with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. To use the word "immaterial" is to say that it does not matter. Would the Minister be prepared to place the words "it does not matter" on the face of the Bill? Would he be happy with that wording? That is what he is saying. He is saying that it does not matter whether or not the animals have been affected, whether or not they have been exposed or any of the other points listed. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made a very strong point. Is the Minister happy with the words "it does not matter"?

Lord Whitty: I suspect that "immaterial" is neither a Civil Service nor a ministerial word but a legal one. I can blame the lawyers and possibly reach some consensus in this Chamber. However, it does not mean that "it does not matter" in the sense to which the noble Countess referred but that it is not the determining factor. As I said, if there is a better way in which to express that, I shall consider it. However, as I also said, the amendments before us reverse the meaning rather than clarify it.

Baroness Byford: We are still debating Amendment No. 111. I hesitated slightly because we have jumped from one amendment to another. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 113:
	Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
	"( ) Where the Minister uses the power under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above he shall give, in writing to the keeper of the animals, his reasons for doing so.""

Baroness Byford: It is a little while since we debated the group containing Amendment No. 113. Although the Minister responded to my noble friend Lord Plumb, I do not believe that he gave a satisfactory answer. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 80.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 114 to 117 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill recommence not before 8.57 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Sudan

Baroness Cox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
	My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who are to participate in the debate as the situation in Sudan is becoming ever more serious and as the people of Sudan are anxiously waiting to hear whether Her Majesty's Government will offer them more substantive support than their largely ineffective policy of critical dialogue. With up to 2 million dead and 5 million displaced in recent years from war-related causes, the toll of man-made suffering exceeds that of Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia combined.
	Yet this huge tragedy goes largely unreported by the media and is effectively condoned by western governments. The National Islamic Front (NIF), the so-called "Government of Sudan", has declared jihad in its most militaristic form against all who oppose it, Muslims as well as Christians and traditional believers. The weapons of jihad include massive military offensives against innocent civilians, enslavement of many abducted women and children and the manipulation of aid, with the regime regularly denying access by UN Operation Lifeline Sudan to vast areas of that huge country.
	In addition to the military jihad against the African peoples of the south and the Beja Muslim people in the east, the regime has consistently violated the human rights of Arab Muslims living in the north, with imprisonment, torture and extra-judicial killings. Recent reports from Darfur indicate an escalation of NIF brutality there.
	The suffering has to be seen to be believed. That is why the regime declares regularly "no go" areas where it attacks locations with low-flying helicopter gunships and high-flying Antonovs dropping 500 kilogram bombs on to civilian targets such as schools and feeding centres. Then ground troops carry out a scorched earth policy, killing men, women and children, or, in Bahr el Ghazal, abducting many into slavery. They steal or destroy cattle, crops, homes, leaving survivors bereft of loved ones and means of subsistence.
	I recently visited one of the regime's "no go" areas in eastern Upper Nile, where children were dying from whooping cough; 89 had already perished as local health workers had no medication. We took Erythromycin to treat those afflicted and halt the epidemic. But while there, we met many other civilians who had walked for 13 days, forced to flee from their villages which had been attacked by NIF troops. Women with babies were so exhausted and malnourished that their breast milk had dried up and they were holding their dying babies in their arms.
	Such is the reality behind the signing of the Machakos agreement on 20th July between the NIF regime and the main opposition group engaged in conflict, the SPLA. This supposed peace agreement hit the headlines and raised hopes. But less than a week later the NIF launched another massive offensive in western Upper Nile with reports of several hundred civilians killed and thousands displaced.
	The second round of talks at Machakos were preceded by intensified attacks by the NIF on civilian targets in the south, including bombing raids on the diocese of Torit, targeting schools and a camp for the displaced. One raid occurred on 19th August, the very day the talks resumed, and NIF bombings persisted during the negotiations, which continued despite these flagrant violations. But when, on 1st September, the SPLA retaliated by retaking the town of Torit, the NIF withdrew with shameless hypocrisy, accusing the SPLA of violating the agreement.
	Of course in a war two sides fight and the SPLA is party to the conflict, with all that that implies. But to suggest, as the British Government typically do, symmetry of aggression and violations of human rights between the NIF and the SPLA or NDA is outrageously misleading; for example, only the NIF uses aerial bombardment against civilians; and in all the locations that I have visited under SPLM/A or other forms of NDA administration, I have seen more effective establishment of civil society and respect for human rights than the NIF has ever attempted. For example, we are told by Arab traders from the north who come south to trade that they feel safer with the SPLM/A than with the NIF's rule of terror in the north.
	On 27th September, in an escalation of their policy of denying aid to many parts of Sudan, the NIF stopped all aid flights into southern Sudan, denying three million people medical and food aid. This action led the chairman of the Committee of Conscience of the US-based Holocaust Museum to "strongly reiterate" the organisation's genocide warning on Sudan, adding that,
	"once again the Sudanese government is attempting to use starvation as a weapon of destruction against its own citizens".
	The fact that this total ban has just been lifted is no cause for commendation. It should never have been imposed. The regime should he required now to stop all restrictions, opening up all of Sudan to aid, wherever needed.
	The NIF is using oil revenues to buy weapons such as helicopter gunships to kill its own people and has adopted a policy of systematic ethnic cleansing of all the communities who live near the oil fields. When I visited Gumriak in western Upper Nile, NIF troops had just attacked with low-flying helicopter gunships, shooting at women and children, Antonovs dropping 500 kilogram bombs, and ground troops which burnt approximately 6,000 homes. 11 churches, seven mosques, three animist shrines, the school and the clinic. That is just one example of huge swathes of Sudan cleared to accommodate oil exploitation. The NGO International Crisis Group has confirmed the use of oil revenues by the NIF to buy sophisticated weaponry, including a reported 120 million US dollars-worth of new Mig-29 fighter aircraft, already used to bomb the hospital town of Lui on 21st September, killing 13 people, including four children.
	The NIF is also reportedly trying to buy a radar system from Alenia Marconi Systems. If this sale is approved, it could be a breach of the EU embargo on the sale of dual-use equipment to Sudan.
	There are other causes for concern which the British Government seem to be ignoring—reports of the re-establishment of terrorist training camps; the transfer of Al'Qaeda gold to Khartoum; and membership in Al'Qaeda of several of its prominent leaders.
	The NIF may have bought immunity by providing some information on international terrorism and on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but many believe that there will be a high price to pay for allowing this Islamist ruthless regime to become even more entrenched; to pursue its brutal ruthless policies of ethnic cleansing; and to engage in international terrorism.
	I have visited Mr Alan Goulty, the Government's special representative for Sudan, to discuss our first-hand evidence. I also wrote on 16th September to express acute concern over recent developments. In a reply dated 26th September, Mr Goulty dismissed the significance of this briefing as "second or third-hand advocacy".
	I hope that the evidence presented tonight will not receive the same cursory dismissal from the Government, whose special representative does not visit the areas directly affected by the war and where continuing flight bans leave civilians suffering and dying unreached, unhelped and unheard. The evidence underpinning the concerns I have expressed comes from many and well-respected sources, too voluminous to be compressed into the time allowed, but I shall place a fuller briefing in the Library of the House.
	I conclude by asking the Minister: first, what equipment and chemicals, such as precursors for chemical weapons, which may he used by the NIF to kill its own people, have been exported by the United Kingdom to Sudan in the past four years? And, given the close links between Sudan and Iraq, what measures have the Government taken to ensure end-user accountability of such exports? Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government promote measures to prevent the deaths of thousands more civilians, such as: requiring the NIF to lift its flight bans on aid organisations, allowing them to reach all civilians in urgent need of aid, before many more die; insisting on the effective deployment of international monitoring teams set up under the March agreement; supporting the US Congress recommendation to install an early warning system to detect and notify impending attacks on civilians; pressing the NIF to maintain Lokichokio in Kenya as the base for relief operations for southern Sudan, the Nuba mountains, southern Blue Nile and eastern and western Upper Nile; and providing more resources for relief organisations operating in the designated "no go" areas, where people die of starvation and disease, or have to move to NIF-controlled areas where they suffer gross violations of human rights?
	The British Government maintain they are helping the situation through "critical dialogue". But the evidence shows that while the regime talks, it kills. The time has come to ask whether this "critical dialogue" just gives the regime credibility while it commits murder behind closed borders. The people of Sudan are looking to Britain for effective help, not just talks and words. I hope that the Government will not disappoint them because I heard today that the US Congress is considering the Sudan Peace Act while we speak, which would put significant pressure on the NIF.
	I therefore hope passionately that Britain will not be left behind shamefully and recorded ignominiously in history for failing the people of Sudan in their hour of desperate need.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House in expressing admiration for the sustained way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has tirelessly sought to bring the suffering of the people of Sudan to the attention of your Lordships' House. She has performed another great service today, highlighting the suffering in Sudan and bringing it to the attention of the international community. I join with her in hoping that the list of proposals that she has laid before your Lordships and the Minister will be implemented and acted upon.
	Two weeks ago, on behalf of the humanitarian charity Jubilee Action, whose progenitor, Jubilee Campaign, I co-founded 17 years ago, I visited southern Sudan and travelled into the Sudan People's Liberation Army-administered areas in the diocese of Torit, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned a few moments ago. I was with the auxiliary Bishop of Torit, Bishop Akio Johnson. There have been nine attempts on his life. He is scarred by bullet wounds. His story is one of immense personal bravery and courage, a pen portrait revealing a broad narrative of suffering.
	Even as the negotiators were hammering out the detail of the Machakos protocol, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Bishop Akio's home and compound were being blitzed by the Sudanese military. In three raids on Ikitos on 26th and 29th June and 12th July, 72 bombs were dropped on his residence. It was obliterated. If the occupants had not scrambled into shelters, there would have been a massacre. The compound also houses a primary and secondary school at which more than 200 children are being educated. Both schools were destroyed but, miraculously, the prudent provision of bomb shelters saved the lives of the children. Bishop Akio told me that many were vomiting and crying and were deeply traumatised.
	Many refugees inside Sudan are dying from hunger and thirst. Cholera and other virulent diseases rage. The effects of daily aerial bombardment and the indiscriminate laying of anti-personnel landmines can be seen in the countless torn limbs and broken bodies. One Red Cross surgeon working at Lokichoggio, the last Kenyan outpost before the border, told me that he had undertaken about 300 operations during the past month, and that two other surgeons had done the same.
	"It's not a civilan hospital",
	he said,
	"it's a field hospital in a war".
	Of course, Machakos did not deliver a ceasefire and it is difficult to see how real progress can be made without one. When the SPLA liberated Torit on 1st September, the scale of the destruction there became apparent. The cathedral church of St. Peter and Paul is desecrated. The smaller church of Our Lady of the Assumption has been razed to the ground; only one small wall remains. The foundations of the church have been turned into a military bunker and the bricks taken to build a mosque. The town itself has been forcibly Islamicised; the road signs turned to Arabic and water and medicine given only to people who have changed their identities to Islamic names. One group of 180 children had been taken to Khartoum and radically indoctrinated, encouraging a hatred of their parents and turning them into child soldiers.
	Bishop Akio would like strenuous efforts to be made to create a process of reconciliation. Indeed, after the capture of Yei, he personally intervened to stop the killing of Sudanese troops whom he fed, clothed and had repatriated. But he says that an end to the bombing is a prerequisite before any kind of reconciliation can begin. He says:
	"People's hatred has gone very deep."
	The picture of devastation is much the same throughout the south. For instance, at Mur Ahat Tha, four children and their mother were killed, along with six others, when its church of St. Mary, rebuilt four times, was levelled again in August.
	I went to Narus, where the dispensary has been completely destroyed. The buildings are a mangled ruin. One local inhabitant, Moses March, showed me where a family of seven—including five children and also an unborn child— died in a direct hit on their hut. In addition to the massacre of Martin Lowie's family, 23 people were killed in raids on Narus. I saw live munitions lying in the school play area.
	In the areas of southern Sudan where conflict still rages, children are being killed daily and women raped. UNICEF told me that,
	"children are being crippled, nails put into their knees, and their Achilles' tendons deliberately broken so that they can't run. There are serious serial human rights abuses. The government connives by arming the tribes who are involved."
	All that in a country in which 10 per cent of children die before they are five; where life expectancy is only 56 years; where 92 per cent live in poverty; and where, in a vast land mass, there are a mere 20 secondary schools.
	In recent months, the Sudanese Government have been intensifying their raids on areas around oilfields, with the aim of depopulating those districts. Since the oil began to flow in Sudan, the Khartoum Government have been able to increase their military spending from £110 million to £220 million. Bishop Akio is scornful of the morality of western oil companies. He says that
	"every barrel of oil that they extract is half full of oil and half full of blood. When people decide where to buy their petrol, they should remember that."
	At the least, we should require oil companies to reveal the size of their receipts from and the scale of dealings with Sudan. We should ensure much greater pressure, including economic sanctions such as a ban on investment, on Sudan by the broader international community in close partnership with regional states in a concerted effort to end the terrible war.
	The Government of Sudan should also be held much more closely accountable by the international community for their deliberate bombing of civilians and the widespread and systematic enslavement of Christians and people of traditional religions and their forced conversion. Those atrocities clearly constitute war crimes. Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians in times of war. The Sudanese Government are targeting civilians through air raids and, with their allies, deliberately and systematically enslaving thousands of non-Muslims. Those atrocities, due to their extensive, serious and systematic nature, can be considered as crimes against humanity and those responsible should be held to account.
	The war in Sudan is a war that the West frequently ignores. It is a client war whose roots lie in the same conflict that led to the carnage of New York's twin towers. It is a war that, far from being contained, is having a ripple effect throughout the region—as far away as Chad—and it is a war whose line of engagement has become Africa's Maginot line. The blood-letting has its roots in racism and fundamentalism; it is a blood-letting exacerbated by radicals seeking to impose their beliefs on non-believers; and it is a blood-letting motivated by greed for resources—primarily oil. With 2 million dead, surely it is a war that demonstrates that it is easier to begin wars than to finish them. The whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for enabling us to raise these issues tonight.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that they are limited to six minutes each.

Lord Elton: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to my noble friend Lady Cox and I extend some sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who must reply to the debate. Her Majesty's Government are not in charge of the world community and the noble Baroness is not in charge of the Foreign Office, so she starts with a gigantic task. We as a nation are not responsible for the world community, but we are neighbours to the other countries in it and we are neighbours to the Sudan—distant though it may be. If ever I saw people left in a ditch by robbers, it is the Christian members of the southern half of that country.
	I was always brought up to believe that oil and water would not mix, but in this case they do. It is the Egyptian interest in water that gives them their desire for the Sudan to be retained as a single state, because the Nile is largely dependent on sources in the south of that country. Also in the south of the country are the ample resources of oil. They do not only fuel the fighter aircraft and armoured vehicles used in the war, they also fuel the whole war campaign and are the war's purpose. The oil enables the Government of the Sudan to pursue their desire of retaining the oil. Regrettably, they are doing so by a policy that has been accurately described as ethnic cleansing—something that we recently thought worthy of our intervention in the Balkans.
	It is oil that provides the money to buy the Antonovs and now the MiG fighters that are being used and which will, if this is allowed to proceed, finance the purchase of the radar system to which my noble friend Lady Cox referred. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer to my noble friend's question as to whether that sale is in breach of the European regime and, if so, what steps the Government are taking—not are about to take—to ensure that that sale does not take place.
	We are discussing a disaster of Biblical proportions that has gone on not for years but for generations. It is a tragedy. I have previously heard the Minister ably and lucidly defend the policy of critical dialogue: it is better to talk to people close to than to shout at them from a distance. Those are not her words, but that is, I think, the philosophy. One is more likely to exercise influence that way. However, I would be grateful if, on this occasion, the Minister could tell us what critical dialogue consists of and how critical it is.
	We are talking about a government who have knowingly and deliberately imposed the sort of regime that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, vividly described. According to a report by Agence France Presse on 31st July, a member of the Sudanese Government—the Information Minister, Mahdi Ibrahim—when questioned about the veracity of an SPLA claim that up to 300 people had been killed and up to 100,000 displaced by the renewed government offensive in western Upper Nile, replied:
	"That's what happened lately".
	That is an extraordinarily calm admission of something that ought to have put those responsible in the international dock.
	I have raised the question of oil before. If the tap were turned off, the war would fizzle out. It would become an old-fashioned war. Numbers would diminish, speed would diminish, and the opportunities for diplomacy would increase. Dependency on the goodwill of other countries would become a powerful factor in the thinking of those who devise the policies. If we do not have the power to turn the tap off, the companies that extract and sell the oil surely do. It is not in their interests to do so individually, but, if they were to act collectively and say, "We are no longer prepared to finance your fighting by extracting and selling your oil and paying you fees, revenues and taxes", the picture would change.
	That would have to be a matter of international agreement. It could not be voluntary because, if one company broke the ban, that would cause the whole thing to cease working. It would also, incidentally, make the breaker of the ban exceedingly rich, which is what it is all about. If such a situation could be arrived at, the companies could have a substantial and satisfactory effect on what was going on. That is why, to my surprise, I found myself drawn to support the proposal made by the United Kingdom branch of Save the Children in May that there should be transparency in the financing of such matters and that it should be arrived at by international agreement.
	I shall expand on that at another time, but my six minutes are up.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is right to ask with forceful energy and urgency about the response of Her Majesty's Government to recent developments in Sudan. Her unswerving commitment to the people of that African country, riven by years of civil war, has gained the admiration and respect of us all.
	Too easily and too often, the desperate plight of the Sudanese people has been forgotten or obscured by other global events and conflicts, as now by the Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian confrontations that dominate world attention. Yet, the war in the Sudan rages on, with over 2 million dead and over 5 million displaced over the years from war-related causes, as other speakers have said. Only the other day, an American bishop said to me that there was never any mention of the civil war in the Sudan in the United States. It was well described by a Jesuit priest, who called it a hidden holocaust.
	Together with the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church is one of the few organisations that have an effective presence on both sides of the long-running civil war. At the beginning of September, I was in Kampala, Uganda, meeting the bishops from northern and southern Sudan, who had gathered together for a retreat and conference, in which I was privileged to take part. It was a rare event because the bishops are unable to meet in their own country. Some live outside the Sudan, caring for their countrymen in exile.
	At the beginning, the mood was upbeat. The Machakos peace talks were gaining momentum. After years of intense suffering and heartbreak, bitter disillusionment and frustration, there was cautious optimism that the civil war could be nearing an end and that genuine peace might become a reality. Within a day or so, hopes were dashed by news that the government's representatives had withdrawn and the whole peace process had ground to a halt. With that came a profound sense of disappointment and distress on the part of the Church leaders. Peace had seemed so near; once again, it seemed so far. A month on, the peace talks have yet to be resumed. I urge Her Majesty's Government to do all in their power to encourage the various parties to get back to the table and resume negotiations. Sudan has suffered far too long; its traumatised, impoverished people deserve to see fresh signs of hope.
	In the view of many, the Machakos peace protocol still offers the best framework for peace negotiations for several decades. Most southerners feel that the agreement provides, at last, a starting point for more substantive discussions. The Sudanese Churches broadly welcome it as an important contribution to the process of bringing peace to Sudan. However, they point out several problematic areas that need clarification. They include the delineation of northern and southern Sudan, particularly with regard to the Nuba Mountains, southern Blue Nile and Abayei county. There is also a lack of detail in the protocol regarding the sources of supreme law that would be worked out during the period prior to a referendum on self-determination, envisaged for six years' time. There is a general feeling in northern and southern Sudan that the talks should be widened to include groups representing civil society, women, the churches and other political and military parties and organisations. That would give wider Sudanese society a feeling of ownership of the process, thereby giving Machakos a better chance of success.
	In the meantime, reliable reports indicate that the bombing and killing of innocent people in southern Sudan has continued and even intensified, as other noble Lords have illustrated. The banning by the Sudanese Government of all UN humanitarian flights from Kenya to eastern and western equatorial regions in southern Sudan denies 3 million people medical and food aid. Starvation is again being used as a weapon of destruction, although there have been few expressions of outrage from the international community about the attacks on civilians or about the fact that a regime is starving a part of its population to death by deliberately engineering famine for the second time in that country's history.
	As your Lordships will be aware, oil and water are major factors, as are the rich resources of gold and uranium that have been discovered in the south. It is reported that thousands of civilians have been forcibly displaced from western Upper Nile to make way for oil exploration. The SPLA has urged oil companies to halt exploitation and production until a just and lasting peace exists within the country. However, so far this appeal appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
	"Sudan is a Highly Indebted Poor Country. Peace would lead to debt relief and a fresh start in bringing development and hope to the people",
	Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development, declared recently. Therefore, like other noble Lords, I believe it important that Her Majesty's Government are more robust in taking forward the concerns expressed today for the Sudanese people.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate Sudan at this critical time in the peace talks between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on securing this debate.
	In following the right reverend Prelate, I want to take this opportunity to mention what I believe to be a relevant and important meeting which is presently taking place in Canterbury. Today was the first day of a two-day faith and development meeting, hosted jointly by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. The participants, from all major world religions and faiths, believe that without common understanding the fundamental goals of fighting poverty and misery on earth, and giving each human being the chance to develop his or her potential, cannot be achieved.
	The emphasis is on dialogue, understanding and a strong common purpose, commitment and communication. These are particularly necessary in the case of Sudan, with its deep religious and ethnic divisions. I warmly congratulate Canon Richard Marsh, who is chair of the World Faiths Development Dialogue Trustees, and Katharine Marshall, director of the World Bank and counsellor to the president, on their enormous achievement in taking forward the agenda I have mentioned.
	Sudan's people, far beyond the two distinct Arab and African cultures, are a melting pot of languages, tribes and religions. The current conflict alone has lasted nearly 20 years, fuelled by race, religion and now increasingly, as has been analysed, by oil. As Senator John Danforth, the US Special Envoy, has put it, Sudan is a desperate place, whose people live
	"in the most difficult conditions that people can live in".
	For while other conflicts and other crises are headline news, Sudan's suffering is often unreported and ignored. All too often, it is reduced to a series of soulless statistics: 36 years of civil war in 46 years of independence; 2 million dead; 4 million internally displaced; 500,000 refugees. Despite all the horror and misery implicit in these terrible statistics, still they fail to provoke widespread international outrage and to goad our global conscience into calls for immediate action. The shocking truth is that we do not even know for sure how many have died or been internally displaced.
	In the past two decades, Sudan's people have known hunger and slavery used as weapons of war. They have known the aerial bombardment of civilians, attacks on relief centres and the looting of aid supplies. They have been driven from their homes, their religious freedoms compromised and their human rights trampled on over and over again. Yet the killing fields of Sudan barely register in the public's awareness. Sudan is a mere blip on the radar screen of political action and public opinion. Unlike other crises, when Sudanese civilians are bombarded from the air, we see little news and few pictures.
	In July, a window of opportunity allowed hope to stream into this desperate, war-torn country. All parties involved admitted that they had a responsibility to engage in serious negotiations, which, in itself, was a major step forward. Both sides agreed to talks under the auspices of the IGAD peace process. As we have heard, on 20th July, after five weeks of talks, the Machakos protocol was signed between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM. It was a significant breakthrough. Once implemented, it would allow the southern Sudan to hold an independence referendum after a six-year power-sharing transition period and it would exempt the mainly Christian south from Sharia law.
	Yet despite all the progress made towards peace as a result of these negotiations, the failure to agree a cease-fire on the ground until last week threatened to undermine the whole process. While there has been good news in recent days, today is nevertheless a very good opportunity for the Minister to update us on the military situation on the ground.
	This is a critical time for Sudan. Both sides in the conflict face a moment of truth. Until last week, a peace process was underway at the same time as a major military offensive. Access to humanitarian services is being denied to hundreds of thousands. Not for the first time, Sudan is walking a fine line between opportunity and catastrophe. This apparent policy pursued by both sides of "talk and fight" at the same time is counterproductive and dangerous. It is wasting time that the terrorised civilians of Sudan simply do not have to spare. The cycle must be broken if Sudan is to grope its way towards any sort of peace.
	A cease-fire, which owes its existence to tactical posturing rather than a genuine commitment to peace, will be as short-lived and as inadequate as all the other cease-fires which have come and gone during this protracted war. We have learnt in Sudan that words and promises mean nothing unless they are underpinned by real actions committing both sides irrevocably to the path of peace. The people of Sudan have heard much impressive rhetoric, but have seen little real improvement.
	As the International Crisis Group's report makes plain, the Machakos talks represent the best chance for peace the Sudanese people have had in two decades. Both sides in the conflict stand at a critical crossroads and they must decide whether they will reap greater benefits from war or from peace. I hope that the Minister will share her views on whether there is a real commitment on both sides to the Machakos peace agreement. For if both sides do not mean what they say, the peace plan is doomed to follow its ill-fated predecessors.
	In conclusion, today's debate must be seen within the context of the G8's Africa action plan, agreed at Kananaskis this year, which mirrors the Government's approach to African affairs and carries the Prime Minister's personal backing. It is important that we are told how the New Partnership for Africa's Development will be translated into practical improvements on the ground in Sudan.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said that the plight of the Sudanese people is all too frequently forgotten. But not in this House, where we always have the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to remind us of it and to draw your Lordships' attention to the need for more robust action by the Government.
	It was too good to be true when the Sudanese Government and the SPLM signed up to an agreement for self-rule in the south, the sharing of oil revenues and a referendum in six years' time. The Macharkos protocol, referred to by all noble Lords, would give the south the power to run its own affairs. However, it said nothing about how the security of the south was to be managed and left both sides trying to gain the upper hand militarily before the substantive negotiations began. The Government walked out on the negotiations on 2nd September, after the SPLA recaptured Torit and returned to the battlefield, at the same time launching intensive bombing campaigns on civilian areas, including IDP camps, and at the end of September imposing a ban on humanitarian aid flights to the south.
	Now the parties have agreed to resume talks on 14th October and there will be a cease-fire from that date. The aid flights resumed yesterday after intense pressure by the UN and other players.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, described the brutal struggle for possession of the oil-bearing territory in western Upper Nile, part of the region which would have the right to secede in six years' time. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, described the ethnic cleansing in which the Government forces killed or evicted 100,000 local people from their homes in an operation which bordered on genocide. The Government need and want the extra revenue from the oil to pay off international debts and to buy more arms to conduct this kind of warfare.
	Will Britain urge that the displaced people must be allowed to return or, if their homes and land are genuinely needed for works connected with oil exploration and development, they should be properly compensated? In the negotiations to determine the amounts payable, the displaced people should be provided with expert advice on what has been paid in other situations where large capital projects are implemented under World Bank guidelines.
	If the south is to run its own affairs, presumably government forces will have to withdraw from the whole region. What arrangements are contemplated for security and has IGAD thought about providing troops to supervise disengagement, disarmament and demobilisation?
	As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, there is nothing in the incomplete protocol on the boundary between the north and the south. But if it is to be as it was on 1st January 1956, as we understand the Government want, it would orphan three areas whose interests need to be considered: Abyei, a Dinka area of south Kordofan, where the northern Baggara were allowed to graze during the dry season during the colonial period; the Ingessena Hills of southern Blue Nile; and the Nuba mountains, which have been mentioned. The SPLM cannot speak for these people and they should be given the right to say which of the two entities in the federal state they want to join. Will that question be deferred until they are properly represented?
	Human rights have figured largely in the debate. Amnesty International has published a human rights agenda for a lasting peace in Sudan, and it expresses particular concern about the situation in Darfour, which has been mentioned, where 12 people were executed in May and another 88 are in prison waiting for the death sentence to be carried out. Those sentences have been imposed by special courts which do not comply with any international norms for fair trials.
	The UN special rapporteur, Gerhart Baum, has referred to,
	"the adverse impact of oil exploitation on the human rights situation";
	the discontinuation of the transition to democracy after December 2000; the obstacles put in the way of opposition politicians who wanted to contact him; the harassment, intimidation and persecution of human rights defenders; and the lack of freedom of expression.
	The Sudan Organisation Against Torture reports a wave of arrests of Popular National Congress members; a sentence of 100 lashes imposed for adultery on a woman who had recently given birth; and the closure of newspapers and arrests of journalists.
	Can we raise these matters with the participants in the resumed Machakos process? We should play an important role in getting that process back on track, as has been said, with human rights prominent on the agenda. But the priority is to stop the fighting and agree on measures for an international monitoring force to look after the cease-fire. The Sudanese Government say that they want this and Mr Garang has accepted it. They must now sit down and decide, with the best technical military help available, how the forces are to be separated and what help is needed from the international community to keep them apart on the ground. Only if peace is consolidated now will it be possible to begin the daunting task of creating new autonomous government structures in the south.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, once again I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on initiating this important debate. It is especially important that we discuss the situation in Sudan regularly because, as many of your Lordships have pointed out, it is extremely volatile and subject to almost weekly change.
	It is also a timely debate because the peace process in Sudan is at a crucial point. At present, Sudan has the prospect of negotiating a lasting settlement. The Machakos protocol represents the latest series of talks between the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Although negotiations broke down during early September, I understand that talks are due to resume in a week's time. This should be welcomed. It will come as a massive relief to the millions of Sudanese longing for an end to Africa's longest-running war.
	Fighting, however, has not ceased completely. As your Lordships know, the Sudanese situation is so complex that ostensible progress towards peace is rarely an unqualified success. Only last week the National Democratic Alliance, which includes the SPLA as its largest component, said it had taken a town on the Sudanese-Eritrean border. It is clearly very difficult to comment constructively on a situation that changes virtually from week to week.
	It is for this reason that I should like to focus today on the humanitarian situation in the Sudan, in which the prevailing conditions are rather more sustained. Although the resumption of talks represents welcome progress, unmitigated civil unrest has taken its toll on the Sudanese. The figures are well rehearsed and I firmly believe that we have a moral and political responsibility to act. Anyone familiar with the history of the Sudan will recognise that Britain has certain responsibilities towards that country. The current global situation demands that we deal with the barbarous circumstances in countries like Sudan, which we should remember was the haven of Osama bin Laden before he moved to Afghanistan.
	I should like to say a few words on the way I perceive the humanitarian situation to be affected by other events in Sudan. I speak with due humility, given the expertise that exists among noble Lords who have already spoken. The single most important factor in starting to deal with the terrible problems of the Sudanese is to initiate a genuine ceasefire. As my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned, it is all too easy to see the problems in Sudan as a jihad between the Muslim north and the Christian and animist south. The logical conclusion is that any lasting peace settlement in Sudan should be firmly rooted in secular democracy, with religious freedom as a pre-requisite for lasting peace.
	However, each group involved in the peace process has its own agenda, be that dominance of the country, exploitation of oil revenues or independence and secession from the state of Sudan as we see it now. Clearly Sudan's problems cannot be solved by peace talks designed specifically to address religious conflict. If a ceasefire is a prerequisite for progress and the improvement of people's lives, the possibility of achieving one is hampered by the different interest groups wrangling for supremacy.
	As we have already heard, Sudan's oil resources present the peace process with a major problem and cannot be separated from recent developments within the country. Time and again we are forced to acknowledge that the drive for self-determination is hampered by oil. The NIF government see oil as the factor that gives them the decisive advantage in the war against the rebel groups. On the other hand, the SPLA has focused its campaign on damaging the oilfields as a means of hitting the government's revenues. I do not think that the answer is to halt Sudan's oil production. Making the country poorer cannot be an answer. Until a settlement is properly founded the Sudanese oil revenues will do nothing for the population as a whole.
	My noble friend Lord Moynihan forcefully stressed that now is a crucially important time for the peace talks to address the problems that will determine the future of the Sudanese. It is also a crucial time for the international community to determine its engagement with the peace process. A determined, internationally-supported drive for peace is essential if the conditions for development, increased respect for human rights and justice are to triumph.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would explain to your Lordships' House how the Government intend to respond to the resumption of the peace talks; how they perceive the future of Britain's relationship with the Sudan; and what progress is likely to be made to alleviate this long-standing humanitarian crisis. Specifically, I should be interested to learn what consideration the Government have given to the recommendations of the International Crisis Group. These recommendations should be regarded as an important starting point in any discussion on the next steps to be taken in securing peace for the Sudanese.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating the debate. The noble Baroness has a long-standing commitment to the people of Sudan. I am left with nine minutes to respond to the debate and I shall do my best.
	No one denies the suffering in Sudan. It is Africa's longest-running conflict, the latest period of which has lasted 19 years, resulting in more than 1.5 million deaths, hundreds of thousands of refugees and widespread famine. But it is a complex conflict and much of the fighting is factional and neither government nor rebel forces can win militarily. That is why we are working to establish peace. It is the only solution.
	We continue to believe that 2002 offers a real window of opportunity for peace in Sudan, and the United Kingdom has a major role to play in ensuring that this opportunity is seized. We support the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as the best chance to bring an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement. As an active member of the IGAD Partners Forum and in co-ordination with other governments that take a close interest in Sudan, we have stepped up our efforts to revitalise the IGAD initiative.
	I take issue with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that our policy is "largely ineffective" and that the tragedy in Sudan is,
	"effectively condoned by western governments"'
	The Government are committed to helping the Sudanese people seize the opportunity for peace. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan earlier this year. We have appointed a full-time Special Representative to Sudan and established a dedicated joint Foreign Office-DfID Sudan Unit, so that our efforts have a better focus and greater dynamism.
	I remind the noble Baroness that Alan Goulty, the Special Representative, and staff from the unit have travelled extensively in Sudan. Their efforts in working with international partners—including Kenyan Lieutenant General Sumbeiywo, the IGAD special envoy—to support the peace process have already yielded dividends. As to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the G8 Africa Action Plan makes specific reference to the efforts that will be made by G8 countries, including the United Kingdom, to bring peace to Sudan.
	A number of your Lordships spoke about the Machakos talks. UK observers were present throughout the first round. We welcomed the Machakos protocol, which represented a significant breakthrough in the major issues of state and religion and self-determination for the south and a step towards the realisation of a just and lasting peace.
	The second session began on 12th August but was suspended. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that we and others supported General Sumbeiywo's efforts to bring the parties back to the negotiating table—ideally on the basis of an understanding that there will be a cessation of hostilities on both sides for the duration of the talks.
	What features make Machakos different from previous peace talks? One is the international presence. We are there with our partners to ensure seriousness of purpose and to demonstrate our commitment to help the Sudanese people to achieve peace. Of course we and other international players will help to implement any agreement that is reached at Machakos. That is all substantially different from previous efforts to reach peace in Sudan. I assure noble Lords that the talks at Machakos will include discussion of most of the issues that were raised this evening. I was very pleased to hear the good news that the parties have agreed to return to the talks on 14th October. I welcome also their agreement to a military stand down, which will take effect on the resumption of the talks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the importance of a ceasefire. We see the cessation of hostilities as an important first step. Of course we are concerned about the on-going fighting, particularly in south Sudan—and in particular the attacks against civilians committed by government and opposition forces. The government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement reached agreement in March to refrain from attacks against civilians. We look to both sides to respect that agreement.
	The United States Government are in the process of establishing an international team to monitor the March agreement to refrain from attacks on civilians, as recommended by Senator Danforth. We expect that to become operational very soon and are ready to provide financial support if required.
	There has already been some progress in Sudan this year. For example, as a result of Senator Danforth's efforts, talks were held in Berne in January between the Sudanese Government and the SPLA aimed at achieving a ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains region. We worked closely with Senator Danforth to achieve that and the ceasefire, although limited to the Nuba Mountains, is a small but encouraging step towards peace. We provided the vice-chairman, police liaison officer and seven monitors to the Joint Military Commission.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and others commented on the humanitarian situation, particularly in south Sudan. We too were concerned about the recently imposed flight ban. We made high-level representations in Khartoum and to the Sudanese Foreign Minister when he visited the UK at the end of September. We and others urged the Government of Sudan to give all possible help to the UN and NGOs to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We therefore welcome the Government of Sudan's decision at the weekend to lift the flight ban. The World Food Programme was planning to resume flights today.
	In the decade since 1991, Britain has pledged more than £220 million to help with humanitarian crises in Sudan. This year we have committed more than £8 million to support humanitarian work and the peace process. Our humanitarian work includes support for health, food security and nutrition, water and education in the worst-affected areas of Sudan. We are also supporting work across lines to trace and resettle women and children who have been abducted. In support of the peace process, we have committed nearly £1.8 million in running costs and personnel for the Joint Monitoring Commission.
	The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Avebury, and others spoke about human rights. The promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities. We are concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. Undoubtedly Christians are among those who have been killed and have suffered as a result of Sudan's civil war. Our embassy in Khartoum is in constant touch with the Government of Sudan on human rights issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked me to be specific about the nature of our critical dialogue. In addition to the support that we have given to the peace process, we have had a number of meetings with Ministers and others in the Sudanese Government. Most recently, we met the Foreign Minister when he was in London. Human rights are a key part of that discussion.
	We make representations about our human rights concerns not only bilaterally but also with our European Union colleagues through the renewed EU-Sudan dialogue, which provides a forum for strong criticism of the Sudanese Government and allows for a co-ordinated EU assessment of the human rights situation. We sponsored human rights resolutions on Sudan at the UN Commission on Human Rights and in the UN General Assembly's Third Committee.
	There has been some progress. For example, the ratification in December 2000 of the International Labour Organisation Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour; the commitment of the Government of Sudan to facilitate the establishment of the independent national institution on human rights and an advisory council for Christians; and the commitment of the Government of Sudan to embark on a programme of civic education in democracy.
	There is still much work to be done. But the only long-term answer to the suffering in Sudan is a peace settlement that will allow the people of Sudan to rebuild their lives.
	In response to the specific question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we have no evidence that the UK has exported equipment and chemicals such as those which she described. The UK applies the European Union arms embargo rigorously.
	The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talked about oil revenues. We have pressed for revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. One of the initiatives launched by the United Kingdom at the World Summit on Sustainable Development—I look specifically at the noble Lord, Lord Elton—is an initiative for transparency in extractive industries, which is something for which we would like to secure international support.
	A just peace agreement in Sudan is long overdue. Once a peace agreement has been reached, the international community will be able to contribute as never before to the rehabilitation of Sudan—a goal that we all share.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.2 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.59 to 9.2 p.m.]

Animal Health Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1.
	[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]

Lord Ampthill: I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 119 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 120 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 1, leave out lines 17 and 18.

Baroness Byford: This amendment is linked with Amendments Nos. 122 and 123. The clause states in effect that, whenever the Minister "feels a slaughter movement coming on", he can go ahead without paying any attention to whether the animals he wants killed have been exposed to infection.
	My reading of the three UK reports leads me to believe that the National Audit Office was less than impressed with the cost-effectiveness of the pre-emptive cull. Anderson and the Royal Society did not in any sense praise it. Anderson commented how much better the Scottish authorities were at implementing their control of the disease. The report from the EU is still awaited, but Commissioner Byrne, in his speech of 12th September, reported that the Commission feels,
	"that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism".
	He then added that stamping out,
	"must also remain possible as a strategy for reducing the number of susceptible animals in the vicinity of an outbreak".
	None of this appears to me to be adequate justification for a clause which declares that it is immaterial whether animals have been exposed to foot and mouth.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 120. It is obvious that I am in retreat before the weight of numbers of government representatives, particularly in another place. However, I am seriously concerned about the principles involved here. Given that the Government insist on slaughter policies which are totally unrelated to the Title and sub-Title of this part of the Bill, they must be made to exercise these powers reasonably and responsibly.
	The cattle we are discussing have not got foot and mouth; they have not been in contact with infected animals nor with people whose lives take them onto infected farms; nor have they ever been exposed to infection under any government definition, but nevertheless the Secretary of State, who sees all things and who must be obeyed, decrees their demise. At the very least, we are asking that the post-killing action should be carried out expeditiously. A delay of more than 48 hours is cruel and inhumane and likely to cause extreme distress to both the owners and obviously the keepers of the livestock affected. I again refer the Minister to number 60 of the working party recommendations which states that emergency vaccination ought always to be used in cases which make it possible to avoid mass burial or burning on pyres. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I refer to Amendment No. 120. I believe that it is very important indeed that animals are buried within the 48-hour period. I am speaking from memory, but if one examines the Northumberland report I believe that the conclusion was that they should be buried very much quicker than that. I believe that it was 12 hours. Perhaps someone will correct me on that.
	One matter which was apparent during the recent outbreak was that animals were not buried rapidly enough. I am sure that we all remember that Brigadier Birtwhistle was brought into Cumbria to sort out the problem. I know that it was a very bad outbreak and that there were many cases. Had the outbreak been controlled at the beginning; had the Army been involved at a much earlier stage and in sufficient numbers; and had local contractors also been involved at an earlier stage, I believe that we could have achieved a much better burial rate instead of having many thousands of carcasses lying around the countryside. We must never see such a situation again. I believe that a 48-hour rule is a good start. However, I think that it should be somewhat less than that; in fact, considerably less.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has confused me slightly. As I understand it, she has spoken to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120.

Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Minister. This is my mistake. Some confusion arose because my two colleagues were not here at the restart of proceedings. Amendment No. 120 should be discussed with Amendment No. 121. Therefore, perhaps we can take Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 at this stage, and deal with the other amendments in due course.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 119 in part goes over some of the territory we were debating before the dinner break in relation to the word "immaterial" in that it seeks to delete part of subsection (3). The arguments put forward by the noble Baroness suggest that she was indeed thinking of not allowing an extension of the powers to provide for the pre-emptive cull. I simply repeat what I said before dinner; namely, that this does increase the scope. It also reflects a clear recommendation of Anderson that we should clarify and increase the scope in this regard.
	If the objection is to the word "immaterial", I have already said that a more mellifluous form of words might be considered. However, the points of principle still apply, as does my commitment to bringing forward an amendment that would include a requirement to produce a slaughter protocol to deal with some of these points in terms of the anxieties expressed.
	In relation to Amendment No. 120, which deals with the disposal of carcasses, clearly the objective must be supported. The difficulty about accepting a 48-hour deadline—or, indeed, any other deadline—unless supported by the contingency plan, is that at the height of an epidemic such as the one we witnessed last year, disposal is of a lower priority than slaughter, vaccination, or whatever strategy is adopted. If the logistics meant that we could not meet the disposal target but that was the only target specified in primary legislation, we would be in difficulty as regards deciding the priorities in terms of disease control.
	Although I fully support the objective of this amendment—namely, to reduce the time taken to dispose of carcasses—I could not accept the proposal as an overriding commitment when compared with commitments that should be dealt with in the national contingency plan. Therefore, rather than place on the face of the Bill a provision stating that we would deal with it in the contingency plan—

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord has rightly addressed his response to those who are directly involved in tackling the disease. However, there are many capable machine operators in the countryside driving JCBs, and so on, who are not involved in that process. Likewise, Army personnel are not involved in that side of the matter. It seems to me that they could have been deployed at a much earlier stage to tackle that side of the problem—that is to say, the burial of carcasses—while the tackling of infection could have continued at the same time and been accomplished just as rapidly, if not more so, than was the case.

The Countess of Mar: Was it not the publication of pictures of bloated animals with their feet in the air that had such a disastrous effect on our tourism industry? Further, was it not the sight of these animals lying in fields near houses where children lived that had a disastrous effect on the psychology of children and of their parents?

Lord Whitty: The noble Countess is correct to highlight the pyres method of disposal. We have said quite clearly that we would not resort to the use of mass pyres in future. The interim contingency plan clearly states that aim—

The Countess of Mar: I was not talking about the mass pyres; I was talking about the delay in getting rid of the bodies of animals.

Lord Whitty: There are two aspects to the matter; first, how quickly we can dispose of bodies in the height of an epidemic, and, secondly, how rapidly we can gear the logistics to achieving that aim without undermining the efforts regarding disease control. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is partially right to say that different people would be carrying out such disposal. However, he is not entirely right. Clearly, some of the support logistics and the allocation of personnel could be very tight, especially in areas like, say, Cumbria, where the disease was so rife at any given time. In such circumstances, one would have to make a choice between disposal and eradication through slaughter, or prevention through vaccination or pre-emptive cull.
	For those reasons, I would prefer not to see a target included in the primary legislation, even if we could come up with ones for this and other aspects of the disease eradication programme in the contingency plan. If targets were included, they might be given primacy over other possibly more important aspects of disease control logistics.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the amendment. Obviously, we were anxious about the possibility of carcasses being left to rot or remaining visible as happened during the previous outbreak. The Bill is likely to be changed yet again if vaccination proposals come into being, so it is difficult to push the Government to accept some amendments, given that they may later be altered. On the other hand, tremendous damage was done not only to the farming community but to the entire rural community and the UK as a whole.
	As the Minister knows, numerous people cancelled their holiday to Britain because they considered our country to be diseased and did not wish to come here. That had huge financial implications for businesses in the UK. I would have thought that the Government would welcome an amendment that requires them to get rid of carcasses within a 48-hour target. However, I have heard the Minister's comments, and I will give the matter due consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) In sub-paragraph (1A) above, where none of paragraphs (a) to (d) applies to the animals in question, the Minister shall serve on the owner of the animals (or in default of the owner being traceable, the keeper of the animals) a notice containing a reasoned justification for his decision to require the slaughter of animals, and no slaughter of animals shall take place until at least 24 hours have elapsed from the serving of the notice.""

Baroness Byford: I apologise for my confusion as regards the order of amendments. I will deal also with Amendments Nos. 131 and 268. In Amendment No. 121, we wish to delete from the start of the published amendment to "question, the Minister" and to insert
	"where the Minister decides to apply sub-paragraph (1A), he".
	Given that no diagnosis has been made of foot and mouth disease, and without reasonable cause to suspect that infection has been found, reasons for slaughter are required. Any Minister invoking paragraph (1A) in support of his discretion to slaughter must be required to give alternative reasons. The alternative must be in writing and served in a fashion that incorporates proof of delivery and of receipt. The recipient should have a minimum of 24 hours to assimilate the ministerial argument and to set in train any necessary appeal.
	The public perception is that consultation is replacing decision-making at local and intermediate level. The media, the press and members of the Select Committee in another place complain of foregone conclusions and of questionnaires carefully worded to elicit desired responses. They complain of lack of responses from Cabinet members and Ministers. We must not worsen the situation by allowing open-ended powers that would, among other things, render legal personal animosity, group persecution, action as a result of flawed research or of advice from an irrelevant source, or action to cover up errors.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 131. Page 108 of the Anderson report states:
	"The issue of disposal and the inadequacy of provision for it had been noted in the Drummond Report in 1999 and further acknowledged by the State Veterinary Service in July 2000. The Dutch experience of disposing of nine million pig carcasses during the outbreak of classical swine fever in 1997 could have served as a warning for other countries to be prepared for a similar eventuality".
	Indeed, we had our own swine fever outbreak here. The fact is that nothing was done. We fear that unless the need to prepare is enshrined in law nothing will be done again until it is too late.
	Even without the endorsement of the learned professor, we would wish to see something on the face of the Bill setting disposal standards for the Government. The people's horrified reaction to the layers of rotting carcasses has made it abundantly clear that this level of ineptitude must never be repeated. Not only did farmers suffer, because it was their livestock that were killed, but their families were on the receiving end at a highly critical moment. Other rural businesses, especially tourism, suffered dreadfully. The evident public revulsion kept visitors away from affected areas in particular, but also from the countryside in general. As someone said in a radio interview: who wants to come to eat lunch at a country pub half a mile up the road from a heap of manure and maggots? Those same country pubs and rural businesses had no compensation for DEFRA's failure to handle the corpses with alacrity.
	Perhaps, from the Government's point of view, the strongest argument for tight standards in carcass disposal is their own recently published strategic review of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in England and the imminent EU draft directive on environmental liability. The Secretary of State explained in a Written Answer published in Hansard on 19th September that,
	"the proposed Directive could have additional positive environmental benefits, by requiring higher standards of remediation and by encouraging operators to take additional precaution".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/9/02; col. 268W.]
	I should have thought that several hundred decomposing bodies lying in a field, especially when the weather is warm, would fall well within the remit of that directive.
	Similarly, nutrients from the over-application of fertilisers cause diffuse pollution from agriculture. As we saw during the outbreak, the Environment Agency was greatly concerned over the leakage from burial sites and into streams. Above-ground decomposition is one thing. But equally, or perhaps more, alarming is the pollution that cannot be seen. The strategic review of water pollution incorporates a paper prepared to inform the Government's thinking around objectives. It concludes, among other things, that there is a need for co-ordination of models from the catchment to the national scale, predicting and monitoring the effects of any policy measures. A slaughter policy that does not set standards for burial, removal or treatment will undoubtedly be at odds with the Government's environmental targets.
	The criterion for Amendment No. 268 is defined in the Northumberland report and in the disease contingency plan. However, as we have seen all too clearly, the system can become overwhelmed. It would be sensible to have a fallback position, as proposed in the amendments, from the point of view of the animals and of human psychology. Anderson writes on page 108 about the inadequacy of provision for disposal. Page 89 of the NAO report records huge sums spent on disposal. A sizeable proportion of that arose from having to make arrangements in a hurry with no preparation.
	Our main concern is to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2001. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a very important amendment. The Minister has started to address some of the problems with the identification of mass burial sites in 2001 and appeared to indicate that perhaps policy was changing on that. There were clearly problems with the preparation of objective geological analysis of sites and consideration of issues such as run-off into river basins. There was a mass burial site at Mynydd Epynt in my former constituency that was very unsuitable geologically. Work was stopped on that site as a result. The road that ran next to the site was opened only last week, having been closed for the past 10 months. That was very inconvenient because—for noble Lords who know the area—it cut off about 20 miles of the road across the Epynt. Although the site has been restored, pollution is still running into the River Towy, and there is evidence that it is running into the River Usk catchment.
	I am not talking about the burning of carcasses so much as the burial of carcasses. As the Northumberland report indicated, where possible, carcasses can be buried on farm sites. However, it is difficult for the Environment Agency to find sites that are sufficiently good and do not result in pollution. The issue requires considerable and detailed examination, the result of which should be a procedure that ensures properly buried carcasses at suitable sites sanctioned by the Environment Agency. I am well aware that the recent outbreak was so great that the problem was particularly difficult to deal with. Consequently, the matter requires great forethought. Suitable sites have to be identified now and not during the middle of a huge outbreak. If that is done properly, I think that some of the problems can be overcome.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 121 would impose two requirements: a slaughter notice to be issued, and then no slaughter for 24 hours. On the first point, I agree that it is important that there is transparency in the decision. That is why we have stated our intention to introduce a new policy of issuing slaughter notices to farmers whose animals are to be culled. The whole purpose of the notices is to formalise the process of notifying of the need to slaughter, to provide documentary evidence, and to explain the justification for slaughter to the stockholder. Notices will be served whenever animals are to be slaughtered and not simply under these new powers, which is a distinct improvement on the requirement that existed last year.
	I do not, however, think that a 24-hour delay would be appropriate. A fixed delay would be inappropriate even if the slaughter were to be done on preventative rather than exposure or disease grounds. We want to get on with this process as rapidly as possible and building in a 24-hour delay could jeopardise that process. There is, of course, always the possibility of asking for a review by the district veterinary manager. I would not, however, wish to see a 24-hour delay built in.
	Amendment No. 131 takes us back to disposal. Although disposal should be carried out as rapidly as possible, it should also be carried out in the best possible way and, as I said, in a way that does not undermine other efforts. We are therefore not happy about including a 48-hour target or about specifying the priority to be given to disposal.
	Under the new interim contingency plan, and according to the current policy, we have a disposal hierarchy that is substantially different from that which operated previously. The hierarchy is as follows. The best form of disposal is by rendering; the second by incineration; the third by landfill on approved sites—although this would require the permission of the landfill operator, we are setting up contracts to that effect—the fourth by burning; and the fifth by mass burial or farm burial. The problem with establishing a 48-hour target is that we run the danger of re-arranging the disposal hierarchy. Therefore rendering is best but if one cannot do that within 48 hours, one may resort to mass burial or on-farm burial. Pyres, of course, do not feature in that list; they are excluded.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: What are the Government doing about creating more rendering capacity and siting that rendering capacity nearer to where livestock exists to speed up the whole process? What work has been done in that regard?

Lord Whitty: We are discussing with the rendering industry how capacity could be made available urgently and on what terms; likewise with landfill operators. Instead of having to negotiate contracts from scratch, as we were effectively doing during the previous epidemic—running to stand still—this arrangement would be in place as part of the contingency plan in advance of any future disease. The noble Lord was right to suggest that rendering capacity is finite. Nevertheless, we should have the ability to maximise capacity this time, which we did not have previously.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. He did not respond to Amendment No. 268, which involved the alternative of using a vaccine.

Lord Whitty: The requirement to vaccinate if disposal capacity was insufficient could compromise other efforts. Vaccination in general must be part of a planned priority list of where we would vaccinate, whereas this approach appears to envisage that we should give priority to vaccination when disposal capacity is inadequate to meet the 48-hour target. I know that that is covered by a separate amendment but the strategy appears to be: "If you cannot meet the 48-hour requirement, vaccinate to slow down the disposal rate". In fact, vaccination and the logistics of vaccination need to be directed at the priority areas in order to stop the disease spreading. That would imply a priority to help out in relation to the disposal side, which again is the wrong priority at the height of a disease.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that but I do not necessarily follow his argument. I shall come back on a couple of issues.
	In relation to Amendment No. 121, I accept that notices are required to be and will be given. On the proposal that no slaughter should take place within 24 hours, I accept what the Minister says. However, there is a major concern about the question of a challenge, which, as the Minister knows, happened last time. There may be provisions in the Bill that I have missed that allow for the possibility of that challenge without slaughter having taken place first; in other words, if someone wanted to make a challenge, he could do so in relation to testing. That might overcome the issue. My understanding is that there is no such proposal in the Bill. I am not absolutely convinced in relation to Amendment No. 121.
	On Amendment No. 131, I accept that there may be circumstances in which carcasses cannot be removed or buried or that disposal cannot take place within 48 hours. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, touched on rendering. Have the Government set themselves any targets about how they would bring in or make available such a system and geographically where would it be? Will animals be trundled around, as they were last time, from pillar to post to reach rendering sites? I accept that the Government have decided that burning and burial are last resorts. They were first resorts last time. However, big questions remain. We still do not quite know how the system will cope if a large number of animals are killed next time. I am still concerned in that regard.
	If animals have to wait for disposal for more than 48 hours and are going to rendering, is the idea still that they will be left on the farm where they have been destroyed and that they will not be moved off that farm to another place before going to rendering?
	I believe that part of the cause of the problems and the great distress which occurred during the previous outbreak was the fact that families saw their animals lying dead for days and days. I was going to say "weeks"; that is perhaps a little unkind, but I believe that in one or two cases the animals may well have been left lying for a week. In responding to these amendments, I wonder whether the Government had considered moving the animals to a designated place if a delay were to occur before rendering could take place. Perhaps the Minister will answer that point.
	Finally, I turn to the question of vaccination and the hope that vaccination rather than cull will be used as the first resort. Where a real outbreak of the disease is seen to occur, would it not be sensible for animals to be vaccinated in order to ease back on the pressures on the Government in disposing of the animals? Although the Minister did not agree with me, I cannot see a reason for not accepting the logic of that argument. He seemed to indicate that the vaccines might be needed elsewhere—perhaps in another attempt to control the cull. But I should hope that there would be sufficient vaccine to cope with any such emergency in the future. I do not see why the two should be in opposition; they could be used together. I wonder whether the Minister slightly misunderstood my argument in relation to Amendment No. 268 and thereby suggested that it was not necessary. Perhaps he will kindly clarify that point.

Lord Whitty: I shall attempt to do so. I was making the point that Amendment No. 268 would put on to the face of the Bill an area in which vaccine should be used but which would not necessarily be the priority area if one was engaged in a strategy which primarily relied on vaccination. It suggests that vaccination should be used where difficulties are experienced with disposal, whereas the disease control priorities might be in an entirely different part of the county or country. That is why I would not want vaccination to be prioritised in that sense. I am not saying that we should not use vaccination to slow down disposal requirements; I am saying that we should not give priority to it.
	As to Amendment No. 131 concerning whether there would be an intermediate step between farm slaughter and rendering, I believe that the general answer to that would probably be "no". There is difficulty enough in creating burial and other mass sites. Ideally one would go straight from the farm to rendering as rapidly as possible. However, I was querying whether we could always do so within 48 hours. There is no built-in half-way house because of the lack of rendering capacity.
	Of course, it must be borne in mind that during the last few months of the outbreak of the disease, even with the rather inadequate arrangements that were in place with rendering companies at that time, the rendering capacity was capable of dealing with the throughput. Only at the height of the disease was a problem experienced. If we consider the hierarchy, I do not believe that we are often left with significant problems on the farms. However, there may be particular areas where a temporary problem occurs.

The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am a little puzzled. There is an urgency behind the Bill. The Minister has stressed that since January, although we are now in October. Yet he says to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the Government have still not sorted out the rendering capacity in case of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is now 18 months or more since the last outbreak began. Yet we still do not have something as important as this in place when rendering is the prime means of disposing of the carcasses. Is it not time that someone pulled their socks up?

Lord Whitty: I do not believe that I said to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that we had nothing in place. I said that I could not say which plant would be the designated rendering plant at the time. However, we have discussed with the rendering and landfill industries the terms on which their premises would become available were an emergency to arise. They would become available immediately, and we would not have to engage in the often quite difficult contractual relationships experienced on the previous occasion. So there is an understanding with the industry. However, I cannot say which rendering plants would deal with a volume of carcasses from a given county. We have to play it by ear, but the understanding is there and the contractual arrangements can be triggered.

The Earl of Onslow: On the Clonmel principle that we would not be starting from here if there is another outbreak due to the acceptance of vaccinations, and the principle thereof, I hope that we shall never have to slaughter that number of animals. The argument is about how we dealt with last year's outbreak as opposed to how we deal with an outbreak the next time around. No one in their right mind would do what happened last time. We shall vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. Everyone will say that we knew that all along. We were in favour of the exchange rate mechanism until we came out of it; it is that syndrome. I suspect that the rendering argument is slightly arcane and slightly unnecessary simply on the grounds that it will not arise because we will vaccinate and will not have to slaughter however many millions of animals. That is probably not very helpful.

Baroness Byford: The intervention of my noble friend Lord Onslow, useful or not, brings us back to where we started today. We are dealing with a Bill that was out of date before we started to discuss it, which shows the nightmare that we are in. Over many weeks and months we have had to prepare our amendments on the assumption that the Bill is as it stands. We now find ourselves in a totally different scenario and it is difficult to argue the case for something that would be applicable to what we have in front of us when we should be talking about something to the side of us. I hope that I am not the only one who finds this experience very difficult. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 121.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Extension of power to slaughter]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 2, line 2, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ampthill: With the leave of the Committee, this amendment occurs repeatedly, so I take it that I can invite the Minister to move such an amendment formally in future and that the Committee will be content therewith.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 2, line 4, after "of" insert "infectious"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 125 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128. My noble friend Lord Peyton is no longer in the Chamber so I shall deal with just those four amendments.
	This is a probing amendment. As far as we can see, with the possible exception of scrapie, this Bill is intended to deal with infectious animal diseases. However, under the current wording of the Bill, the powers could extend to animals that are genetically diseased or suffering from radiation or acute dehydration or any other manner of ailments that could be passed on from dam or sire. Perhaps the Minister will explain the extent of his intentions in the application of the Bill and ask the draftsman to consider the wording that will adequately describe its extent and not leave it open to endless interpretation. For that reason we suggest including the word "infectious".
	On Amendment No. 126, the introduction of a three-kilometre cull showed how arbitrary such a policy could be. The amendment is intended to offer some protection to owners of animals that are regularly kept in isolation. The very fact that such a cull is to begin before the announcement of any outbreak means that it cannot be quickly wheeled into place once an announcement has been made.
	The provision could also apply to newly purchased animals held in isolation under the 20-day rule. That rule has been introduced in an educated attempt to stop the spread of foot and mouth should it ever be imported again through the markets. If it is adequate for the purpose, the implication must be that animals kept indoors must be considered to be relatively safe from infections unless or until their own premises are affected. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke to that when we had an earlier debate around the issue.
	In relation to Amendment No. 127, although the Minister has already suggested that he would be paying full market value, I should still like to move the amendment, which is on page 2, line 6, after "compensation" insert "at full market value". If the BSE outbreak taught MAFF nothing else, it should have taught it that playing around with fractional values is the one guaranteed way to leave farmers—who are probably earning between 1 per cent to 2 per cent on their capital, which is, to a large extent, their livestock—manoeuvring around to find a way out. In Ireland, BSE earned the title of the "JCB disease", not to put the blame on Mr Bamford but because there were a few identified cases and a sense that there were a great many unexpected holes in the ground.
	This is a direct implementation of Recommendation 61 of the Anderson report. Anderson's Recommendation 61, page 150, advises government and the livestock industry to explore how incentives might be used to raise standards. We believe that restricting compensation to three-quarters of market value is diametrically opposed to the professor's view. We suggest that the Minister should reinstate the full market value as a basis for all compensation and adjust it up or down as a particular circumstance dictates. I believe that the Minister earlier indicated that he appreciates that.
	Amendment No. 128 is another approach to the question of the appropriate level of compensation. That is clearly laid down in the 1981 Act. The present Bill seems to be fixed on doing it differently. Section 36(3) provides for anything seized for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot and mouth or any other disease to be paid for at its value before seizure. Anything less than market value will open the door to temptation on the part of some farmers, perhaps, whose profit margins, as we all know, are desperately low so as to be incapable of absorbing the loss.
	When one considers the items that are condemned along with the livestock, it is totally unreasonable to legislate for destroying them for anything below their value at that time. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the noble Baroness on the question of market value, which is extremely important so far as concerns Amendment No. 130. I am slightly concerned about Amendment No. 126, which refers to keeping animals indoors and totally isolated. The matter depends very much on the premises and whether or not they are downwind of an outbreak. That is particularly pertinent in the case of pigs and wind-borne transmission of foot and mouth disease. Although I should like to think that we could find some circumstances where some animals kept indoors in certain types of sheds might be insulated from an outbreak, if we are to consider such provisions the precise circumstances in which they would apply must be accurately defined.

The Earl of Onslow: On the valuation question, there has been reasonable criticism that can go both ways. In the most recent outbreak, people were waiting for valuers to go to see cattle before they were slaughtered. I am not sure that that is a good idea. Surely, it must be possible to take a list of people's herds if they must be slaughtered and to do so quickly as opposed to waiting for a valuation. It appears that the valuation process was over-complicated and, in some cases, was slightly over-generous. That brings the farming industry into disrepute and makes disease control that much more difficult. If we are to slaughter, we must slaughter jolly quickly. I hope that with the advent of vaccines, that will not arise, but the Government should address that question publicly.

The Countess of Mar: Can the Minister tell us what diseases he envisages falling under the clause? I can think only of infectious diseases to which it might apply. It might be well to make that distinction of infectious diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear the reason why the amendment concerning animals kept indoors should not be accepted.
	I agree with noble Lords who have spoken about compensation at full market value. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that there were problems with waiting for valuers. I agree, but on the other hand there is a difference in value between a cull cow and an in-calf heifer and I know of individuals who were claiming that they had in-calf heifers when in fact they had cull cows. Some valuers were unable to distinguish between the two. There are enormous difficulties. One animal can be worth twice the price of another. That is fraught with problems and we must rely on the honesty and integrity of those involved. Perhaps the animals should be seen before they are slaughtered.

Lord Greaves: First, I apologise to the Committee because I had to dash out and missed a small part of the debate. However, it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I say that we had requested a stand part debate on the clause that we are due to reach in two or three group's time. As the debate is spreading in that direction, we can ask the questions that we wanted to ask on that now and save a little time later.
	I have been slightly confused by this debate. As I understand it, Clause 2 is all about diseases other than foot and mouth and extending the powers in the 1981 Act to other diseases, as the Secretary of State sees fit. In the light of that, the first question to ask is that asked by the noble Countess, Lady Mar: which other diseases do the Government envisage that encompassing? At present, they could be any disease, but the kind of slaughter or vaccination regime that is appropriate for the diseases set out in the schedule to the 1981 Act—cattle plague, pleural pneumonia, FMD, swine fever and poultry diseases—is not necessarily applicable to diseases that are not spread in an infectious manner and which can be dealt with in other ways.
	There is concern that the schedule could be used to deal with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. We discussed TSEs in Committee before the recess, but there is concern that the provision could be extended to cover TSEs when they are clearly an entirely different kind of disease that is not, so far as we know, infectious between animals and certainly does not spread rapidly in that way.
	So the first question is: what other diseases will the provision cover and why should we not write into the Bill a requirement that they should be infectious diseases? If the Minister does not like the term "infectious", what term would he like to allay the fears of people who believe that, perhaps not under the present Secretary of State or the present Minister but in future, the Bill could be used in other ways?
	The second broad question is about how the regime—the rules and regulations—envisaged might be covered by the new powers, which are very broad. As I read them, they allow the Secretary of State to create, by way of an instrument passed by affirmative resolution, any regime that he or she wants for any disease to which he or she decides it should apply. Have I read that right? Is it as broad as that? Or is it restricted in some way to the more detailed rules that we are discussing with regard to foot and mouth disease? Is it an extension of the foot and mouth disease rules and regulations, as set out in the Bill, to other diseases? Or does it, in effect, allow the Secretary of State to create, by means of an instrument, any kind of regime that he or she wants? That is fundamental.
	The other question raised by the amendments relates to the detailed matters arising from those concerns. There are questions relating to compensation, indoor stock and so on. Those are a few of the questions that we are debating in the context of foot and mouth disease. Will the gamut of rules and regulations apply to the other diseases? If not, what will?

Lord Jopling: At this stage of our consideration, I must ask the Minister for the Government's view of the susceptibility of animals that are kept indoors. This is the appropriate moment for such a question.
	During the dreadful outbreak last year, I was astonished to find that the disease did not spread into the intensive pig herds in the north of England and down the east side of England. I live and have a farm in North Yorkshire, close to the A1. There were outbreaks of foot and mouth disease within 10 miles to the east, within 10 miles to the west and about 10 miles to the north. A large pig unit—about 700 pigs, I think—only a mile east was taken out because it was owned by someone who had had an outbreak further over. It was thought that there could be a dangerous connection. Mercifully, I did not get the disease on my farm, although—dare I say it—I would have been infinitely better off today if I had. Thank goodness, I did not.
	I am surrounded, particularly to the south, by some highly intensive and efficient pig units. Given everything that I was taught about foot and mouth disease at university and elsewhere, I was astonished that the great intensive pig herds of north and east Yorkshire did not contract the disease and that it did not go through those areas like a prairie fire. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is nodding his head; I am grateful for that. He knows a great deal about such things. Ever since the outbreak, I have been puzzled as to why the disease did not spread into those highly intensive pig units. Could it have been that this type of virus was more likely to be contracted by sheep than by pigs and that pigs were not susceptible to it? Or could it have been that most pigs are kept in environmentally controlled units?
	At this stage of our consideration, before we turn to the more pointed discussions at the Report stage, it is important for the Minister to give an answer, if he would be so kind. He may not be briefed on the issue—I realise that it is technical—and I do not want him to think that I am trying to blind him with science. However, it is important that before the Report stage we have an idea from the Government why pigs, which are always said to be more susceptible to foot and mouth disease, did not contract it. It was principally confined to sheep, which we always thought were less susceptible than pigs. If the Government's view was that pigs did not contract the disease because they were in enclosed, environmentally controlled units, that would be helpful to us in framing this legislation.
	I know that in recent years the practice of keeping sows outside has grown. I have never owned pigs in my life, but I know that there is a growing belief that keeping sows outside is a good way of breeding pigs. If one drives up and down the A1 and the M1, as I do, one often sees pig units out in the fields. The pigs, with their small shelter, have a run of open fields. One would have thought that the pigs in those open-field units would have been more likely to contract foot and mouth disease last year. I was astonished that they did not.
	If the Minister cannot give an answer now, I shall understand, but it would be helpful if he would be good enough to write to everyone concerned within the next week or so after his officials have had time to consider the points raised. We would like to know the Government's view of the susceptibility to disease of animals which are kept indoors and those kept outside.
	I note what my noble friend has included in her amendment in trying to make an exception of those animals constantly kept indoors from the day before the announcement of an outbreak. However, in framing the regulations we must understand this important issue. I do not press the Minister to move into waters which are out of the depth of Ministers, but perhaps during the next two weeks he could inform us of the Government's view because that would be most helpful to all Members of the Committee.

The Countess of Mar: From my observation of what happened during the recent outbreak, animals appeared to be infected by direct animal-to-animal contact, as with sheep going to market. I also noticed that in Worcestershire—it may have occurred in other counties—a postman went from farm to farm carrying foot and mouth disease. He also kept animals of his own. A relief milker picked up the infection from the cattle he was milking and carried it to his own sheep. Various farmers also visited one another, thereby infecting the animals. In some cases, it was said to be done deliberately, but that is anecdotal evidence.
	It is very interesting that nowhere in the Bill are there any controls to prevent humans from one farm visiting another farm. Under the original Act one is able to prevent people from coming onto one's premises or into one's buildings if one is afraid of infection, but there is no legislation to prevent people from infected premises going onto other premises. It is important that we should think about this factor because it concerns direct contact.
	The noble Lord may be interested to know that Fred Brown tried to infect pigs with foot and mouth disease but, even when he had them in the same room with fans going between them, he did not infect them. The only time they became infected was when they had their noses in the same trough.

Earl Peel: I, too, have often asked myself why the particular strain of foot and mouth virus did not spread as quickly as it might have done through the pig units of Yorkshire and down the east coast. But surely it would be unwise to consider legislation based on one particular kind of foot and mouth virus because, as I understand it, there are several strains.

The Earl of Onslow: There are 26.

Earl Peel: My noble friend Lord Onslow tells me that there are 26. One has to be a little cautious when one looks at this particular virus, interesting though the facts are.

Lord Carter: This is not the occasion for an arcane discussion on pig husbandry. It is of course an irony that the whole outbreak was first identified in a sow on a production line. I said in relation to an earlier amendment that, knowing how infectious the disease can be if it gets into pigs, bad as the outbreak was, it was a godsend that it did not get into the pig herd, particularly in Humberside.
	It is not a point for this Bill, but we should look at the incidence among outdoor herds and indoor herds. Was the pig unit that was taken out 10 miles south of the noble Lord's farm an indoors or outdoors unit?

Lord Jopling: It was an indoor unit about one mile to the east of my farm.

Lord Carter: If it was an indoor unit, that completely destroys Amendment No. 126. Animals that were kept constantly indoors were taken out as a contiguous cull.

The Earl of Onslow: I believe I wrongly advised my noble friend Lord Peel. I have been corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. There are 72 strains of foot and mouth.
	It has arisen during the debate that the outbreak primarily involved sheep. The outbreak of 1965 or 1967 primarily involved cattle. Why is it that one bit of it seemed infectious to sheep and one bit infectious to cattle but it did not go into pigs? Do we have any information? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty; I am a seeker of information. We do not know, and it would be helpful to have some information.

The Countess of Mar: It may also be of interest to know that 90,000 piglets were killed in Taiwan from the same strain. So pigs were affected there.
	Perhaps we should congratulate the pig keepers in our country on the very high health status of their animals and for the extreme precautions they sometimes take to prevent their pigs becoming infected. We have a wonderful pig industry in this country. Those responsible are to be congratulated on the fact that foot and mouth did not sweep through it.

Lord Whitty: We have had a very constructive discussion on pig farming. Perhaps I may now deal with the original amendments. Amendment No. 125 seeks to limit the scope of any extension to other diseases to "infectious" diseases. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, implied, that would by implication rule out any genetically transferred diseases or, possibly, even contagious diseases.
	The Phillips report states that we should be prepared to provide for systems to deal with diseases of which we are not yet aware. Having a restriction relating to infectious diseases only would restrict the ability to extend these powers to other forms of disease.

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry but it is a ridiculous answer to say that precautions should be taken against diseases of which we are not even aware. How could that be done? That is grasping at the air. How could such precautions be taken unless we got rid of all the animals? I said to a noble Lord on the Liberal Benches the other day that if we got rid of all the animals there would be no animal diseases—then every precaution could be taken against diseases that we do not know about. That is a ridiculous argument. We must know the hazards before any precautions against risks can be taken.

Lord Whitty: I return to the Phillips inquiry, which advised the precautionary principle, so we had the framework of the regime in place. The way in which the powers are applied would be different for a genetically transferable disease from a infectious disease but some of the same powers—such as powers of entry—would be needed. The noble Countess says that could not be done for an unnamed disease but an affirmative resolution would be required. Once the disease became apparent, we would bring forward an affirmative resolution to extend the provisions to that disease—infectious or otherwise. Not only does that not apply in the abstract but there would be a parliamentary procedure before we defined the disease to which it applied. But we would need the same kind of powers in the case of a disease that was transmitted other than by infection.

Lord Greaves: After the noble Lord has taken further advice, perhaps he could say on Report what other means of transmitting diseases he is thinking of, other than infection. Contagious diseases are indeed infectious diseases. The noble Lord mentioned genetically transmitted diseases. The one genetically transmitted disease that the Bill covers in detail is covered in a separate section because the Government accept that it needs to be dealt with separately. If there is a need to extend powers similar to TSE powers to other genetically transmitted diseases, why is that not in the scrapie part rather than in this section? We need to understand other means of transmission that might require what are actually quite draconian powers.

Lord Whitty: It is in the scrapie section because that part deals with flock improvement, not an outbreak of disease. This section deals with an outbreak of disease that might turn out to be genetically transferred. As to contagion and infection, there are medical arguments about whether the two are equivalent. Inserting the word "infectious" could suggest that it limited the interpretation, although I would hope not.
	I originally thought that Amendment No. 126 related to pets. As the noble Countess indicated, one of the main means of transmission is by individuals handling animals—be they pets or farmyard animals housed indoors. If they mix with other animals, there is no reason for animals housed indoors being less susceptible to disease than those kept outdoors.
	I probably agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that I will write to him about pigs. Clearly pigs are susceptible to the disease, although apparently not as susceptible as the other species. The difference was probably because they were not moved around in the way that sheep and cattle were moved around. Where there was infection, it applied indoors and outdoors. As the noble Countess said, there were examples in other countries.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord said something very interesting—that pigs are not susceptible to this strain. Is that what he said?

Lord Whitty: Yes.

The Earl of Onslow: Do we have any information as to the susceptibility of different animals—be they goats, sheep, pigs or cattle—to the various strains of foot and mouth? If we do, that should alter our whole attitude to disease control.

Lord Whitty: I shall need to take advice as to the precise answer. Off the top of my head, it is that we have post facto statistical views of where an outbreak has taken place, but not a veterinary view as to why an animal is more susceptible to one strain than to another. We can only do this post facto; therefore, it is not much of a guide to future action.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord said that pigs are less susceptible to this particular strain. I found his comment very interesting. I may be totally wrong, but if that is what he said, there must be more information on the matter. It cannot be based merely on outbreaks; it must be based on some scientific evidence.

Lord Whitty: No, it is entirely based on statistics. They appeared to be less susceptible. But, as the noble Countess said in relation to Taiwan, other countries have a different statistical experience. There may be medical and environmental reasons behind it, but we do not have that information. If I am wrong, I shall let the noble Earl know.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 dealing with compensation. As I indicated earlier, so far as concerns compensation for vaccinates which are slaughtered, I agree, and I shall be bringing forward a slightly differently worded amendment to ensure that compensation for vaccinates slaughtered for foot and mouth purposes will be 100 per cent of the market value. There are arguments about how the valuation is set, but they are for a later period.
	These two amendments attempt to extend the compensation arrangements to other diseases. As I said at the start of our proceedings, compensation arrangements in relation to other diseases, are not necessarily for 100 per cent of the market value for slaughter of any kind. There are different arrangements for different diseases. Therefore, we shall try to have the equivalent for vaccinates to the normal compensation for slaughter in that disease, which will not in all cases be 100 per cent. I indicated also that some rationalisation of the system so that there is greater equivalence between diseases is probably desirable, but again that is for a longer term assessment of the compensation regime.
	Section 36(3), referred to in Amendment No. 128, applies to compensation not for animals but for things seized. Therefore, the implication that this relates to animals is not correct.

Baroness Byford: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a longer debate than I expected. Perhaps I may refer to the amendments in reverse order.
	I take it from what the Minister said that he will not consider our Amendment No. 128. There is no way that the Government would pay compensation for objects seized rather for than animals taken.
	In regard to Amendment No. 127, seeking compensation at full market value, we had this argument earlier. The Minister kindly indicated that the Government would pay the full market value. However, he went on to say that different arrangements may be in place for different diseases. I shall need to study his remarks carefully and may well wish to return to the matter. I do not understand why other diseases should be treated differently. We have all been coping with the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak, which was particularly difficult. Before that, there was the smaller outbreak of swine fever. When we are examining new legislation in the hope of introducing better provision, I wonder why we cannot manage to set the same level of compensation across the whole and why it has to be set at different standards for different diseases. Perhaps the Minister wishes to comment.

Lord Whitty: I am referring to an historic inheritance. Even the regulations covering swine fever are different from those covering foot and mouth. It is a two-tier system of compensation for diseased animals: 100 per cent in some cases and less than 100 per cent in others. Some of the other regimes for diseases which thankfully we have not had recently provide for either fixed sums or less than 100 per cent. That is one of the reasons why we need a complete review of the compensation system.

Baroness Byford: It is one of the many very good reasons why we need a completely different Bill, but that is another matter. The noble Lord has indicated that the Government are going to pay the full market value in compensation only as regards animals killed as a result of foot and mouth and that other infectious diseases will be dealt with according to the particular circumstances of the case. In a Bill concerned with animal health it seems odd that matters are left in limbo. One would have thought that we could have addressed the matter within this Bill. For something which has taken place before and which may have been good or bad, it seems illogical not to have drawn it into this Bill and tidied it up. But perhaps that is a subject for another day.
	As regards Amendment No. 125, I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister does not accept our very small insertion of the word "infectious". I wish that I could tempt him further, but I believe that I cannot do that tonight. I suspect that we shall return to that quite frequently.
	In referring to the broader and interesting debate about foot and mouth disease and pigs, perhaps I may say that we have the last little pigs going out this month because we are going out of pig production. I, too, have been very surprised that the pig industry managed to avoid being caught up in this particular outbreak of foot and mouth. It is true that many of us keep pigs indoors, but further along from us on the lighter land there are outdoor pigs. One would have thought that perhaps those pigs would pick up the disease sooner. Certainly those of us who keep pigs are very careful about who comes and what happens. Very tight regimes have been set up.
	Perhaps I may digress a little. The same applies to the poultry industry. I do not believe that I have washed my hands and boots so many times as when visiting a poultry unit. These matters are hugely important. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the very practical support they have given and the questions they have raised.
	I ask the Minister to add to the list of things he is going to do. Has the department compiled any statistics on those animals which were "killed out" but which were kept indoors and were infected rather than being contiguous culls? I believe that is something we should know before the next stage of the Bill. There may be implications from which we can learn. I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand and it is certainly a late hour. I hope that the Minister will be able to produce the information for us next time.
	Have the Government carried out statistical breakdowns as regards where, what and why the animals were killed? We agree that it was sheep which were predominantly affected this time whereas before it was cattle. How many of them have been looked at in the light of the progress of the disease from A to B? If the Minister has those facts to hand, it would be enormously helpful to those of us taking part in the debate to have them circulated to us in advance. That might save time on the discussion on the Floor of the House, which is likely to be more than two weeks away. Such information would be very helpful.
	I know that we had an earlier debate and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, took part. One cannot argue that just because animals were kept indoors they did not develop the disease. However, it might be something which the local inspector would take into greater consideration in defining biosecurity rules.
	Forgive me for being unable to give the name, but someone said that there were no biosecurity rules laid down. It may have been the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I refer her to our Amendment No. 311, which we shall certainly not reach tonight, but at some other stage. We were well aware that the Bill as it stands is very draconian for farmers and those who look after livestock. It puts no requirements on the department but keeps those who look after the animals at arm's length. We believe that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill that includes people who work for the department, vets, or whoever else might be involved in the same way. We have in mind the way that livestock are kept and cared for.
	I hope that that consideration shows that we are equally concerned about the way that the disease was probably transferred—namely, that it was not purely from animal to animal. It was actually by human contact, which does not mean just the farming human contact. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The Minister shall, for animals slaughtered under this section, pay compensation which shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered."

Baroness Byford: This amendment seeks to ensure that the Minister shall, after the animals have been slaughtered, pay compensation to the full value and do so immediately. In sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 1(2), provision is made for the Minister to adjust the compensation payable for animals slaughtered because of disease other than foot and mouth. The Bill should be unambiguous in the treatment of compensation for slaughter to prevent the spread of any disease.
	As has already been mentioned, it is possible to argue—DEFRA has done so—that most animal infections are in some measure due to the action of farmers; for example, the farmer chose to attend a market on a certain day, or, he allowed a contractor on to his land without inquiring too closely into his precise movements over the previous two weeks. However, it is not possible to blame the farmer for having a farm that is next to, or downwind from, infected premises.
	If the Minister decides to slaughter with no evidence of infection present for the reasons of contiguity or relative position, then he must pay 100 per cent compensation. Indeed, the Bill must ensure that he does so. In several of the amendments that we have already discussed we have asked for such valuations to be taken on the day when the animals are slaughtered. However, the Government might consider having the valuation from the start—that is, the first day of the outbreak—rather than on the day before that person had their animals killed out. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: This takes us back to what we were discussing earlier. This amendment would require 100 per cent compensation to be given in all the diseases to which these provisions were extended. That is not the current situation as regards all other diseases. The noble Baroness may argue that, logically, it should be. However, that is not the case. We are considering the structure of compensation and the way in which it is administered; namely, disease by disease, which is a much longer-term process than we have in the Bill. Therefore, I would resist the suggested extension under this amendment.

Earl Peel: Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the Committee in one respect. Am I correct in my understanding that it is not the noble Lord's intention to discuss the issues on compensation for foot and mouth within the Bill because he wishes to return to the issue and discuss it at a later stage? Alternatively, is it the Government's intention not to deal with compensation under this legislation but to introduce further legislation later to deal separately with such issues? Can the Minister tell us the nature of his plans on this particular issue?

Lord Whitty: There is but one issue to which I wish to return as regards compensation in this Bill, but, by saying that, I am pre-empting the discussion that we shall have shortly on Clause 3. My current intention is not to return to compensation, except in relation to the 100 per cent market value for vaccinates under the FMD disease control measures. I shall have my own wording in the amendment to achieve that aim.
	As I have already pointed out, the report of the National Audit Office identifies a number of flaws in the present compensation and valuation operation. It also raises implicitly the issue of risk-sharing, which involves insurance and levy. It will take time to assess and consult upon those complicated issues. Therefore, further legislation on the issue would be required in due course, following our animal health strategy, which we hope to complete early next year.

Lord Jopling: Some of the Minister's words fill me with disquiet. I hope that he will expand on his comment that the Government are exploring the possibility of insurance. Does that mean that they are minded to move from providing compensation in such cases, leaving it to people in the industry to insure themselves? I hope to heaven that the Minister did not mean that, but it sounded suspiciously as though he was saying that the Government intend to move from the compensation approach that has been taken in foot and mouth cases and during other outbreaks for as long as most people here can remember. If they are minded to toll the industry, this is a total bombshell for the Animal Health Bill.
	I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, and, if he means what I thought he did, he must come clean now and tell us what exactly is in the Government's mind.

Lord Whitty: My comments had nothing to do with the Animal Health Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, did not mishear me. For at least one year, I have been saying that in the long term we must examine how the risk should be shared between the industry, the Government and the taxpayer. That would not mean a precipitate move away from the compensation system, but we must consider long-term options to avoid such bills as fell on taxpayers in the past. Our measures must be compatible with the industry's interests and may take a long time to establish. We are in discussion with representatives of the industry, the insurance sector and others to establish our options. We have not decided how to act, or in what timescale to do so. That issue is not reflected in the Bill.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The insurance industry appears to indicate that the risk is uninsurable and that it is not prepared to go down that path. I wonder what measures the Government are taking to persuade the insurance industry that they can shell out sufficient funds. Alternatively, will the premiums for producers be so great as to be unaffordable? A can of worms is being opened on this huge issue. This is a question for another day, as we need to discuss this complete change of principle in great detail.

The Earl of Onslow: There is a jolly good case for abolishing the compensation culture. However, that cannot be done without a largely free market and an unsubsidised agriculture industry. Our agriculture industry is bound by rules, subsidised and restricted by the CAP and the Department of EFRA, or whatever it is called. It is perfectly possible to insure against the risk of foot and mouth disease, if it is considered over five years. The incidence in one year was catastrophic; however, it can be insured against over a reasonable period.
	However, as long as we have a highly regulated industry, with the Government saying this and the Government saying that, we have to have compensation. With a freer market, less regulation and less of the CAP, I suspect that we could expect farmers to bear their own risks and take their own responsibility. I would welcome that, although that is not what we are talking about in the clause.

Baroness Byford: The Minister may want to come back on this issue. My noble friend Lord Jopling heard him correctly. We had spoken about the issue earlier. It is slightly ironic that the department that totally failed to cope with doing its own job in managing disease control and stopping disease coming in now wants to get rid of its responsibilities for paying out for some of its errors.

Lord Carter: The Companion says that the debate should be relevant to the Question before the House. The Question before the House concerns Amendment No. 130, which has nothing to do with insurance.

Baroness Byford: I suspect that the noble Lord is not quite right. The amendment talks about compensation.

Earl Peel: I may be able to help my noble friend. I simply asked the Minister about the Government's intention. The Minister then revealed his plan to substitute present levels of compensation with some insurance policy.

Baroness Byford: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has given me a double whammy. I was right in the first place and my noble friend was right. We are talking about compensation. If what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said is correct, we are talking about the Government ending up paying less compensation in future if they can manage it. My noble friend Lord Plumb said that he used to be insured. Many farmers were, but one problem was that insurance premiums became so high that people could not afford them, so they stopped insuring. We are back to square one.
	The EU working report, to which we have referred earlier today, suggests that only 80 per cent of compensation for some diseases may come from what the report calls "the public purse", in whatever form that takes. It is not acceptable to expect the buck to keep passing back to the farmers, who are currently struggling to make a minimum wage if they are lucky. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that the risk is insurable. It would be, but we have to remember that more animals are kept now than were kept in years past, there is more movement of animals and there is much more global movement. People come in and out of this country. The chances of disease being brought in and out of this country grow as more of us come to and fro. We talked about vets earlier in the day. The number of vets out in the field has not gone down. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, quoted that the other day. However, it has not gone up pro rata with the increase in the number of animals, so there are fewer visits to the farm. The cycle keeps going on and on.
	I thought that this was not a difficult amendment, but it has taken on another look. I am glad that the NFU supports it. At this stage the best thing I can do is withdraw it, but we shall return to it. I thank noble Lords for their support and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Adjusted compensation]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Byford: I oppose the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill. Not one of the diseases listed on page 9 of the Bill is endemic in Great Britain. Great Britain is composed of islands and protected from contamination from its neighbours by a minimum of 20 miles of sea and an underground tunnel. Then again, with the number of people transiting illegally through the tunnel, I am not sure that it truly does provide such protection.
	Nevertheless, infection will not seep in, and it is highly unlikely to be blown in. It will have to be brought in. Once imported, unless it is stopped in its tracks, its movement to the first and possibly subsequent points of infection or contagion will, unless the whole procedure is deliberate, be totally uncontrollable and unpreventable by the first, second and even third recipient.
	In my opinion, it is highly likely that the owner or keeper of livestock will be dismayed, angry and upset about the diagnosis of an exotic disease among his charges. Indeed, I am sure that he definitely will be upset. If it is immediately clear that the infection has not been prevented by the officials charged with doing so, he might also be rude. However, that is not an adequate reason for lopping off one quarter of his compensation cheque. Depending on the numbers involved, such a deduction could cost him more than a fine at level one, two or three.
	I question whether, in the circumstances of the first, second or third infection victim, the courts might not consider it cruel and unusual punishment to penalise the farmer by so adjusting his compensation.

Lord Carter: As I understand it, the Minister intends to agree with the noble Baroness to remove Clause 3 from the Bill, which would also remove Schedule 1. There is no need to spend much time persuading him to do it because he has already said that he will do it.

Baroness Byford: I am delighted to hear it. I shall offer the Floor to the Minister so that he can say it publicly. If he does not do so, I can return to the issue.

Lord Whitty: As I indicated in my opening speech, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling among some people that the clause could be counterproductive. I regret that the farming sector and the opposition parties have not recognised that it could provide an incentive to biosecurity. However, as it is rather crude, it merits further consideration in our wider assessment of compensation, valuation and so on. I shall not reopen that whole discussion now. I therefore accede to the noble Baroness's opposition to the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill. As Schedule 1 will consequently fall, as will the next few groups of amendments, we shall be able to move on to Clause 4 either tonight or later, as the usual channels have now decided.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The possibility had been suggested earlier, and I was not for one moment suggesting that the Minister might change his mind in the intervening period. I wanted at least to make a start on the clause. As I spent several hours putting together my speech on this clause, I am glad that noble Lords were able to hear a little taste of it. I thank the Minister for accepting our suggestion.

Clause 3 negatived.
	Schedule 1 [Adjusted compensation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 132 to 190 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 negatived.
	Clause 4 [Slaughter of vaccinated animals]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 191:
	Page 2, line 31, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.